# Thread: Questioning Gravity & Relativity: Vertical Michelson-Morley Experiment

1. ## Questioning Gravity & Relativity: Vertical Michelson-Morley Experiment

Hi friends,
I have recently conducted a modified Michelson-Morley experiment which is a bit different from previous attempts. It was performed underwater to eliminate measurement errors due to deformation from weight of the components and related stress-strain. I have installed the interferometer inside a HDPE pipe which is extremely rigid and has a unit density almost identical to that of water (.98 g/cm3) . Light is reflected 60 times via mirrors to get an effective arm length of 72 meters and the setup could easily be rotated underwater.
Results are interesting/unexpected. Light is always delayed in the vertical arm whether it is pointing up or down, implying a perpendicular flow (of the medium) with a speed of around 11 km/s, which of course reminds me the escape velocity..
Based on this experiment (and some other issues) I replaced spacetime with flow and claim that matter sucks the space around it with a speed of sqrt(2GM/r) at any distance r from its center of mass, which equals the escape velocity for that position. More precisely, every spatially isolated lump of matter (in free fall) creates a unique frame of reference around itself, that has an accelerated flow at each and every point toward the center of mass, thus exerting a (gravitational) force to all other bodies around (F=ma).

For details pls see the attachment or check http://viXra.org/abs/1703.0009

2. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,660
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Hi friends,
I have recently conducted a modified Michelson-Morley experiment which is a bit different from previous attempts.
I prefer not to look at offsite material, so if you would provide a representative snippet of your theory and results here, that would be much better.

In the meantime, you use the unquantitative term "extremely rigid" in describing HDPE. In interferometry, we denominate critical lengths and stability of same in units of wavelength. If you used an optical interferometer, then "extremely rigid" may not suffice. I look forward to seeing how you computed error bars for your experiment.

3. Welcome to CQ!
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Hi friends,
I have recently conducted a modified Michelson-Morley experiment which is a bit different from previous attempts. It was performed underwater to eliminate measurement errors due to deformation from weight of the components and related stress-strain. I have installed the interferometer inside a HDPE pipe which is extremely rigid and has a unit density almost identical to that of water (.98 g/cm3) . Light is reflected 60 times via mirrors to get an effective arm length of 72 meters and the setup could easily be rotated underwater.
I don't think I would characterize HDPE pipe as extremely rigid--how's it compare to steel?

You say it could be rotated under water. You haven't done that yet?

Since you're using multiple reflections, pointing up should be the same as pointing down, right?

Which way does the 11km/s shift occur? Since your effective is 72m, and you're using 60 reflections, your setup must be only a 1.2m long. A difference of 11km/s corresponds to .0037%, about 44micrometers. How are you making sure your apparatus isn't moving that much, especially since you're tilting it.

Results are interesting/unexpected. Light is always delayed in the vertical arm whether it is pointing up or down, implying a perpendicular flow (of the medium) with a speed of around 11 km/s, which of course reminds me the escape velocity..
Based on this experiment (and some other issues) I replaced spacetime with flow and claim that matter sucks the space around it with a speed of sqrt(2GM/r) at any distance r from its center of mass, which equals the escape velocity for that position. More precisely, every spatially isolated lump of matter (in free fall) creates a unique frame of reference around itself, that has an accelerated flow at each and every point toward the center of mass, thus exerting a (gravitational) force to all other bodies around (F=ma).

For details pls see the attachment or check http://viXra.org/abs/1703.0009

4. Originally Posted by grapes
Welcome to CQ!

I don't think I would characterize HDPE pipe as extremely rigid--how's it compare to steel?
Trivia knowledge, the modulus of steel isn't great. You have to calibrate it for temperature, humidity and pressure. You generally can goof a measurement with too much hand tension. For surveying its one part per 29 million, which is eye accurate over many feet. Like 50-500. It is very obvious when two different people hold the tape on the same measurement. You can reasonably record 2 or 3 sig figures by eye which is enough to really play heck with your math if you have someone introduce an evil concept like "go for four or fig sig figs". No, that isn't reasonable with a steel tape, but teachers will happily let you think that.

5. Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
I prefer not to look at offsite material, so if you would provide a representative snippet of your theory and results here, that would be much better.

In the meantime, you use the unquantitative term "extremely rigid" in describing HDPE. In interferometry, we denominate critical lengths and stability of same in units of wavelength. If you used an optical interferometer, then "extremely rigid" may not suffice. I look forward to seeing how you computed error bars for your experiment.
I wish you could at least check the attachment in my post because detailed schematics of the modified interferometer cannot be drawn here..It is a different design and many of your questions are answered there in full.
HDPE or "high density polyethylene" is rigid enough for the job (actually better than steel or even titanium) because it has almost equal unit density to water, in other words the cylindrical chassis for the interferometer does not get deformed due to its own weight when underwater, eliminating a common problem for experiments employing vertical motion. Having said that, I of course would not compare my setup with what can be built in a well equipped research lab, like some of you guys may have access to. And that is the sole purpose here, to convince someone independently repeat this exercise with his/her own design, materials and implementation.
To summarize the experiment, one arm stays parallel to earth while the other (vertical arm) is rotated with an angular speed close to 30 degrees/min and fringe shifts are observed. Current theory suggests that there should not be any, but there are shifts and they are maximized at perpendicular positions..With the most benign terminology, this means that light behaves differently when it is propagating under the effect of gravity.

6. Originally Posted by grapes
Welcome to CQ!

I don't think I would characterize HDPE pipe as extremely rigid--how's it compare to steel?

You say it could be rotated under water. You haven't done that yet?

Since you're using multiple reflections, pointing up should be the same as pointing down, right?

Which way does the 11km/s shift occur? Since your effective is 72m, and you're using 60 reflections, your setup must be only a 1.2m long. A difference of 11km/s corresponds to .0037%, about 44micrometers. How are you making sure your apparatus isn't moving that much, especially since you're tilting it.
Thank you.. Unfortunately I am a newbie and even my posts to my own thread take ages to appear.. Moderators pls help
As I mentioned in my reply to Geo Kaplan, HDPE was chosen because it is strong enough and has almost equal density to water, it doesnt sink or get buoyed up to the surface, stays stable under water with negligible stress-strain. For that purpose, materials like steel would be a bad choice because they will deform under their own weight and distort the interferometer.
Forgive my poor English, I meant it can easily be rotated underwater. Yes it was rotated many many times during the experiments.
The cutout from the pipe is a cylinder with an inner radius of 140 and height around 160 cm's. The 'L' shaped interferometer (which has no physical arms itself) is constructed in this cylinder which is rotated around its axis (The arms are not inside pipes, the whole interferometer is inside a cylinder rotating underwater - pls check the diagram in the attacment to have a better understanding of the setup). Pointing up is at 90 and pointing down corresponds to 270 degrees of rotation respectively.
Yes, real arm length is 120 cm's. Green laser used has a wavelength of around 400nm underwater and because of what I summarized above, forces acting upon components are negligible during the natural rotation of the cylinder.
The shift is always in the same direction, implying an 11 km/s flow toward the center of earth. This also confirms that shifts are not due to a length change or movement in the vertical arm, because in that case shifts would be in opposite directions (when the arm is up and down at 90 and 270 degrees)

One requirement of our rules is that presentations must occur here, within the forum. You are welcome to make specific references to your offsite material (i.e.; "please see Figure 1, which supports my claim that...") however, you may not simply exhort members to read your document as a substitute for making your case in this forum.

8. Ok..You may refer to the attachment for figures, charts and some equations.

SUMMARY
Supported by experimental evidence, it is theorised that gravity is not a field or spacetime curvature effect, but rather has a flow mechanism.
This is not an alternative theory of gravity with an alternative metric. Established laws and equations from Newton and Einstein are left unchanged. However, spacetime curvature is replaced with flow, producing a refined theory.

METHODS and EXPERIMENT

The Theory is based on a modified version of the Michelson-Morley experiment [3], originally conducted in 1887. This and subsequent versions by different teams employed the rotation of the arms of a Michelson Interferometer in the horizontal plane, parallel to earth’s surface. This would measure the speed of the claimed ‘aether flow’ as the earth orbits the sun (expected to be at least 30 km/s). They all produced null results, apparently disproving aether and showing that light does not need a medium to propagate in.
The modification presented here involves the rotation of one the arms of the interferometer in the vertical plane, to investigate the effect of gravity on light that has a perpendicular path to earth’s surface.
This kind of vertical setup introduces serious problems, like the deformation of the frame and misalignment of components under their own weight. When the wavelength of light is considered, it is obvious that all such effects due to gravity and rotation must be minimized to produce meaningful results, with extreme attention to the quality and assembly of parts. With these considerations it was decided to conduct the experiment under water, using a cylindrical frame with a rigid structure. The material of choice was HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) which has a very high strength–to-density ratio. It neither sinks nor is buoyed up, due to its almost identical density (0.98 g/cm3) to water. The cylindrical frame could be rotated underwater without difficulty. Its inner diameter and height were 140 and 160 centimeters respectively.

As can be seen in figure 1, light is reflected 60 times across interferometer arms via slightly angled mirrors, to obtain an equivalent arm length of 72 meters. The analysis section which comes next describes how this path length is predetermined. A 532 nm, narrow beam-far range laser module with exteremely low divergence angle and collimation was used throughout the experiments. Beam width was less than 1 mm and reflected beams were approximately 2.5 mm apart. In calculations, speed of light in water is taken as 225,000 km/s which gives a wavelength of around 400 nanometers for the green laser used.

Current theory states that light, being an electromagnetic wave, does not need a medium to propagate and has a constant speed at every direction. Thus, there should be no shift in the interference pattern regardless of how you rotate the setup, in horizontal or any vertical plane. In the case of upward propagation, there must be a redshift in frequency due to gravity, only to be canceled out by an equal blueshift while coming down back, producing no shift again.

RESULTS

Measurements were taken on 2 different days, at 7am and 7pm (before dawn and after dusk ) in December 2016. Ambient temperature was the same as the pool temperature, 24° C. First, the arms were rotated horizontally to repeat the classical Michelson-Morley experiment. No significant fringe shifts were observed. This also served as a quick check for systematic and calibration errors before each run. Then one of the arms (vertical arm - V) was erected slowly by rotating the cylinder counterclockwise around its central axis at a rate of 30 degrees per minute, while the other (horizontal arm - H) stayed parallel to earth. It was observed that the fringe pattern shifted during this rotation, being maximised at 90 and 270 degrees, that is when one arm (V) is perpendicular to earth's surface. Furthermore the shift was always in the same direction and indicated that light is delayed in the vertical arm whether it is pointing up or down (this also served as a test to check that fringe shift is not related to deformation of the setup).
Results are summarized below.

Rotation Angle (degrees) 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
Mean Fringe Shift (wavelengths) 0(rf) 0.55 0.84 0.58 0.02 0.56 0.88 0.56
Table 1 : Average number of fringe shifts (in wavelengths , over 8 runs) versus rotation angle, for an effective arm length of 72 meters with a 532nm (λ ≈ 400nm in water) laser.

From the results summarized above, it is inevitable to deduce that light travels in a different manner vertically, than it does horizontally. Without breaking accepted laws of physics (speed of light is constant, and light would be bent toward the gravitating mass) this exclusively implies that space flows into earth or in other words, earth sucks the space around it. Furthermore, detailed analysis of data in table 2 indicates that the speed of this accelerated flow approximates √(2GM/r) , escape velocity on earth’s surface, as predicted by the discussion in the next section.
Observations at 90 and 270 degrees are summarized below, that is when one arm is perpendicular to earth :

day time angle # of fringe shifts implied flow speed
(degrees) (wavelengths) (km/s)
1 7am 90 0.84 10.5
1 7am 270 0.76 9.5
1 7pm 90 0.80 10
1 7pm 270 0.92 11.5
2 7am 90 0.88 11
2 7am 270 0.96 12
2 7pm 90 0.84 10.5
2 7pm 270 0.88 11

Table 2 : Recorded number of fringe shifts and implied flow speeds at 90 and 270 degrees (perpendicular positions).

Observational sensitivity was about 1/25th of a wavelength (4%). Average fringe shift was 0.86 wavelengths, corresponding to a flow speed of 10.75 km/s . All shifts were in the same direction. For calculating implied flow speeds at 90 and 270 degrees, the equation

number of fringe shifts (in λ’s) = 2L ( c^2/(c^2-v^2 ) – 1)/ λ ≈ 2Lv2/ λc2 (1)

can safely be used (L is the total effective arm length).
Another point for consideration is that despite the earth moves through space as it orbits the sun, there are no fringe shifts when the arms are horizontal (just like the original Michelson-Morley experiment, no ‘absolute motion’ was detected). This strongly suggests that any spatially isolated lump of matter which is in free fall, creates its own reference frame that flows inward from every direction and gets carried along during motion.

ANALYSIS and DISCUSSION
Supported by experimental results in the previous section, it is theorised that matter does not curve/bend the surrounding space but rather sucks it in toward the center of mass, with a flow speed of √(2GM/r) at any
given distance r from its center of mass (idealized case for a simple shaped body with mass M, r >> maximum structural radius of the body, G ≈ 6.67x〖10〗^(-11) m3 kg-1 s—2 is the gravitational constant and flow speed is in m/s).
In other words, gravity is the result of the accelerated flow of space into the gravitating mass, with a resultant force on all other bodies (due to relative acceleration with respect to the reference frame, F=ma). The structure and properties of (empty) space will not be discussed here, however once again, it is crucial to consider this as the reference frame flowing toward the gravitating body.

DERIVATION from CLASSICAL MECHANICS
Flow speed at any given coordinate is the main parameter to be determined. Take the hypothetical case of a large gravitating body with mass M and an (almost) infinitely remote/small particle of mass m, both at rest to begin with. According to classical mechanics; starting with a kinetic energy of zero, ‘m’ will gradually accelerate and attain a kinetic energy of GMm⁄r and a speed of √(2GM/r) , at any distance r to the larger mass. In the flow model for gravitation however, our infinitesimal particle is stationary with respect to the reference frame while frame itself (space) flows toward the gravitating body, thus their speeds will be identical. This gives us
V(flow) = √(2GM/r) (2)
at distance r. As mentioned above, this is equal to the escape velocity in classical physics.

For a quick reality check, we should be able to derive gravitational acceleration g , which is the key to Newton’s Law of Gravitation;

g = dV/dt =dV/dr dr/dt = dV/dr v = -√2GM/(2r^(3/2) ) √2GM/√r r̂ = - GM/r^2 r̂ (4)

where there are no surprises.

CONCLUSION and REMARKS

Although each would be the subject of another paper on its own, it would be appropriate to mention the implications of the theory for some of the controversial topics in physics.
INERTIA and MOTION
One of the main conclusions of this article is that every isolated object/matter in free fall creates its own reference frame that flows toward its center of mass. This reference frame is carried along during motion, as the experiment confirms. In case of acceleration, flow pattern is momentarily disrupted by compressive and decompressive adjustment waves, in the same and opposite directions with acceleration respectively. These travel at the speed of light and correspond to the present concept of gravitational waves. Only during this temporary readjustment the accelerated body will experience structural stress (and time dilation), until its reference frame corrects itself and flow pattern reaches equilibrium again with uniform motion. Energy required for acceleration is simply transferred to and stored in the flow, showing up as kinetic energy in the equations of classical physics. What we call ‘inertia’ is simply this flow pattern’s resistance to change, during acceleration.
It is also interesting to note that uniform motion should actually not be possible according to Relativity, since every moving body will continuously emit gravitational waves and dissipate energy regardless of its speed and acceleration. This is because every disturbance in spacetime will produce gravitational waves in Einstein’s spacetime curvature model. This is not the case with flow, where gravitational waves are emitted only during acceleration.

9. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
This is not an alternative theory of gravity with an alternative metric. Established laws and equations from Newton and Einstein are left unchanged.
Then why would your experiment give a different result than predicted by those theories?

10. Originally Posted by Strange
Then why would your experiment give a different result than predicted by those theories?
Although the equations are almost the same, underlying model is different (flow vs. spacetime).
Relativity explains the gravitational effect on light in terms of redhift/blueshift, while flow would do that by superposing the (locally constant) speed of light with the movement of the reference frame (space).
L/(c-v) plus L/(c+v) is always greater than 2L/c , meaning light in the vertical arm always takes more time to go and come back.
This is how you can explain the delay in the vertical arm, of course if my results are also verified by other experimenters.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,652
I think you need to account for the success of various optical gyroscope, which see no such thing.

Good luck.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,652
Try googling 'optical gyroscopes'.

13. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Hi friends,
I have recently conducted a modified Michelson-Morley experiment which is a bit different from previous attempts. It was performed underwater to eliminate measurement errors due to deformation from weight of the components and related stress-strain. I have installed the interferometer inside a HDPE pipe which is extremely rigid and has a unit density almost identical to that of water (.98 g/cm3) . Light is reflected 60 times via mirrors to get an effective arm length of 72 meters and the setup could easily be rotated underwater.
Results are interesting/unexpected. Light is always delayed in the vertical arm whether it is pointing up or down, implying a perpendicular flow (of the medium) with a speed of around 11 km/s, which of course reminds me the escape velocity..
Based on this experiment (and some other issues) I replaced spacetime with flow and claim that matter sucks the space around it with a speed of sqrt(2GM/r) at any distance r from its center of mass, which equals the escape velocity for that position. More precisely, every spatially isolated lump of matter (in free fall) creates a unique frame of reference around itself, that has an accelerated flow at each and every point toward the center of mass, thus exerting a (gravitational) force to all other bodies around (F=ma).

For details pls see the attachment or check

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Try googling 'optical gyroscopes'.
I believe these depend on the Sagnac Effect and employ ring or coil type interferometry..
In other words they do not have orthogonal arms and we are basically talking about different things..

14. Just to clarify some recent posts, mails and questions;
By using a cylindrical HDPE frame underwater I essentially created a weightless environment, since this material has the same density as water...
Some friends suggested that this experiment should ideally be done on space station but no, there you would only measure the station's own gravitational effect since earth's effect is canceled out by orbital motion (so you practically would not be able measure anyting)..

15. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Established laws and equations from Newton and Einstein are left unchanged.
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Although the equations are almost the same
So which is it: unchanged or slightly changed?

, underlying model is different (flow vs. spacetime).
You might want to look up the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates. They seem to have beaten you to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullst...vé_coordinates

BTW. Doing one experiment (of unknown quality) does not really support a new theory. You would need to do more work to identify and remove (or account for) all sources of error. (Some of which have been mentioned by others.)

16. Originally Posted by Strange
So which is it: unchanged or slightly changed?

You might want to look up the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates. They seem to have beaten you to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullst...vé_coordinates

BTW. Doing one experiment (of unknown quality) does not really support a new theory. You would need to do more work to identify and remove (or account for) all sources of error. (Some of which have been mentioned by others.)
that is exactly why I said "This is how you can explain the delay in the vertical arm, of course if my results are also verified by other experimenters."
Having said that I honestly believe my setup is the most accurate and least flawed vertical Michelson-Morley experiment to date. I have not heard any serious challenge from this forum, regarding possible sources of error.

One equation among others will slightly be changed for the better, to explain Twin Paradox..
By the way, can any of you guys fully explain the problem in the following excerpt from my attached article ??
... and ‘Twin Paradox’ remains to be an unsolved problem: Consider this special case of twins, who are side by side to begin with. They speed off into opposite directions with equal accelerations (and velocities) in magnitude, approach and travel at c/2 for sometime, then slow down with symmetric velocity and acceleration vectors, stop and start coming back in the same manner, till they meet again and stop. Special Relativity would claim that both twins are now younger than the other !!! There is no possible way to explain this within the current theory.

17. Originally Posted by Strange
So which is it: unchanged or slightly changed?

You might want to look up the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates. They seem to have beaten you to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullst...vé_coordinates

BTW. Doing one experiment (of unknown quality) does not really support a new theory. You would need to do more work to identify and remove (or account for) all sources of error. (Some of which have been mentioned by others.)
since my posts are published very late, I am writing in advance..
just to answer your concern : Yes the equations are basically the same..only one equation will be revised slightly, but for all practical human use it yields the same result with Einstein's original equation.
Now, you cannot explain that in this length in the abstract of an article..You make it short. that was the whole idea..but thanks anyway for reminding me.

18. This is serious..
Einstein tried to explain the classical version of the twin paradox (where one of them is stationary) with acceleration differences, but I am having trouble understanding this version that I made up last year..
Can anyone explain this within common logic ?

"...Consider this special case of twins, who are side by side to begin with. They speed off into opposite directions with equal accelerations (and velocities) in magnitude, approach and travel at c/2 for sometime, then slow down with symmetric velocity and acceleration vectors, stop and start coming back in the same manner, till they meet again and stop. Special Relativity would claim that both twins are now younger than the other !!! There is no possible way to explain this within the current theory."

19. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Yes the equations are basically the same..only one equation will be revised slightly
Can you show the details of this, please; i.e. what equation is changed and how it is changed.

20. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
By the way, can any of you guys fully explain the problem in the following excerpt from my attached article ?
The problem seems to be that you don't know how to apply special relativity to the case you describe. Can you show your calculations that produce the result that "both twins are now younger than the other". Then, perhaps, it will be possible to show where the error in your calculation is.

21. Originally Posted by Strange
The problem seems to be that you don't know how to apply special relativity to the case you describe. Can you show your calculations that produce the result that "both twins are now younger than the other". Then, perhaps, it will be possible to show where the error in your calculation is.
Sure..no need for calculations..you probably noticed that twins always have symmetric velocity & acceleration vectors..but according to sp relativity (which of course I do not know as good as yourself) when they finally come together, left-going twin will think that right-going one is younger and similarly, right-going twin will think the other way. So what is your solution here, does the universe have a directional preference ?

22. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,660
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Having said that I honestly believe my setup is the most accurate and least flawed vertical Michelson-Morley experiment to date. I have not heard any serious challenge from this forum, regarding possible sources of error.
You haven't supplied your error analysis, so it's rather premature to declare victory. I guess you missed the part where I expressed eagerness to see you present just such an analysis, so I'll make it a formal request: Please show, in appropriate quantitative detail, your calculations of contributions by possible error sources. Supply error bars, confidence limits, etc. as is standard practice in experiments. Show that the error bounds are tight enough to support your claims. Avoid non-quantitative terms such as "extremely rigid". Interferometers are, by their nature, extremely sensitive. Unfortunately, they are exquisitely sensitive to many factors that you wish not to sense. I have built excellent thermometers that began life as interferometers, for example.

One equation among others will slightly be changed for the better, to explain Twin Paradox..
As Strange has already said, you seem unaware that the Twin Paradox isn't a paradox, so no "explanation" is needed. I look forward to your presentation of calculations that will "better explain" the (non) paradox. In case that was too oblique, I am formally requesting those calculations. Thanks.

23. I have sent my answer for the "non-paradox" sometime ago and still waiting for it to show up..hope u guys can enlighten me, seriously..
Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-08 at 10:08 PM. Reason: Garbled quote

24. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Sure..no need for calculations..you probably noticed that twins always have symmetric velocity & acceleration vectors..but according to sp relativity (which of course I do not know as good as yourself) when they finally come together, left-going twin will think that right-going one is younger and similarly, right-going twin will think the other way. So what is your solution here, does the universe have a directional preference ?
If there is "no need for calculations" how do you know that relativity says that they will both be younger than the other? Please show your calculations that produce this result. Or admit it is just a guess, with no basis in the theory.

p.s. If you feel you need to learn how relativity theory actually treats this problem, then you could start a thread in the Q&A section.
Last edited by Strange; 2017-Mar-08 at 10:00 PM. Reason: spelling/punctuation

25. Originally Posted by Strange
If there is "no need for calculations" how do you know that relativity says that they will both be younger than the other. Please show your calculations that produce this result. Or admit is is just a guess, with no basis in the theory.

p.s. If you feel you need to learn how relativity theory actually treats this problem, then you could start a thread in the Q&A section.
Would u mind showing me ur calculations that there is no paradox here ?
Remember, what u read in wikipedia is not always true...

26. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,660
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Would u mind showing me ur calculations that there is no paradox here ?
Remember, what u read in wikipedia is not always true...
One who is seeking to overturn relativity should, at minimum, understand relativity. As Strange gently suggested, perhaps you would like to avail yourself of the Q&A subforum.

It is unnecessary to remind us that "what u read in wikipedia" is not always true. It is also irrelevant, for no one here is reliant on it.

There are many textbooks that explain the "paradox." I just took a look at the relevant wikipedia entry, and the multiple explanations it provides are correct. One might quibble about style points and clarity, but you can read it and learn something. Also, note the citations. Go to them if you want to read the source material. You need to understand the subject first. Your argument for why the paradox exists is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and that undermines your credibility.

27. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,748
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Hi friends,
I have recently conducted a modified Michelson-Morley experiment which is a bit different from previous attempts.
Hi, Tempeststrawberry.
The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment did not suffer from deformation (see Fig 1 in that article) because it was built on top of a block of sandstone. That reason was to eliminate vibrational effects. Other thermal and vibrational effects were minimized by using the basement of the Adelbert Dormitory of WRU (a stone building). Even so passing horse traffic, distant thunderstorms, etc. occasionally made the fringes vanish.

You are ignoring the many other Michelson-Morley experiments showing a null result for Earth moving through an aether. Optical resonator experiments up to 2009 have fund an upper limit of 299,792,458 * 10 -17 m/s.

Thus your experiment is moot because it is extremely imprecise compared to modern Michelson-Morley experiments.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-09 at 12:08 AM.

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,748
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
... and ‘Twin Paradox’ remains to be an unsolved problem:
This is incorrect, Tempeststrawberry, since the twin paradox was resolved a few years after it was proposed.
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.
Also note that the twin paradox is an experimentally verified fact. Take 2 atomic clocks (the "twins"). Put one clock on an airplane and send it eastward adding to the velocity of the Earth's rotation. When it gets back it is younger than the stay-at-home twin. That is basically the Hafele–Keating experiment.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-09 at 12:22 AM.

29. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
This is serious..
Einstein tried to explain the classical version of the twin paradox (where one of them is stationary) with acceleration differences, but I am having trouble understanding this version that I made up last year..
Can anyone explain this within common logic ?
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Would u mind showing me ur calculations that there is no paradox here ?
Remember, what u read in wikipedia is not always true...
Tempeststrawberry,

The ATM forum is not the place to receive instruction on mainstream theories. If you have questions about mainstream science, please pose them in the Q&A forum.

An additional reminder: While members may elect to do so, you may not demand that they disprove your claims. You must bear the burden of supporting your claims.

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,748
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Ok..You may refer to the attachment for figures, charts and some equations.
It turns out that you are actually not doing a Michelson-Morley experiment at all!
You are using a Michelson interferometer "to investigate the effect of gravity on light that has a perpendicular path to earth’s surface".

You have not eliminated a change in arm length when it was rotated vertically. All that is needed is a compression of less than 400 nanometers (as in your description). Or the arm to flex - you are using plastic pipes after all.

The "summary" is mistaken. You have a different theory from GR where gravity comes from curvature of spacetime. Your theory cannot match the tests of GR, especially since it does not include relativity.

The "derivation from classical mechanics" is wrong because space is static in classical physics. Thus no "space flow" can be derived.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-09 at 12:56 AM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•