Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 172

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

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    My point is that your claim that the flow you believe you have seen is the same as the blueshift seen in the experiment is wrong. It is out by something like a factor of a billion. If your flow was a real thing then when they swapped the target/source around they would have go wildly different results. This is why you are being asked to re-analyse the experiment in flow terms.


    An early morning typo for 10 km/s (order of magnitude your flow speed)


    They don't need to. Check the experimental setup.
    I'll check the setup, but I suspect that unless they do interferometry (compare vertical vs horizontal simultaneously), it would be problematic.

    ok, let me clarify a misconception of yours.
    11.2 km/s is the perpendicular flow speed on earth.
    what creates the "energy change" in Pound-Rebka experiment is the difference in gravitational potentials, at heights r and r+h (from E=mgh).
    what creates the energy change in flow model will be the miniscule change in flow speed,
    given by the difference of escape velocities at these heights, √(2GM/r) and √(2GM/(r+h)) respectively.
    so I am sure we'll get the same results.

    and lastly, I do not believe in anything, except logic.
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-13 at 07:24 AM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    I'll check the setup, but I suspect that unless they do interferometry (compare vertical vs horizontal simultaneously), it would be problematic.

    ok, let me clarify a misconception of yours.
    11.2 km/s is the perpendicular flow speed on earth.
    what creates the "energy change" in Pound-Rebka experiment is the difference in gravitational potentials, at heights r and r+h (from E=mgh).
    what creates the energy change in flow model will be the miniscule change in flow speed,
    given by the difference of escape velocities at these heights, √(2GM/r) and √(2GM/(r+h)) respectively.
    so I am sure we'll get the same results.

    and lastly, I do not believe in anything, except logic.
    The change in escape velocity over those distances is about 0.01926m/s. A factor of 10,000 larger than the speed required to offset gravitational blueshift.

    And that still leaves the issue that when the experiment was reversed in orientation there was no need to suddenly add 10km/s to the speed of the source to offset flow.

    So if you are going to continue to assert that your flow model is compatible with the Pound Rebka experiment you are going to have to show that it is. Otherwise this can be taken as a falsification of your ideas - you've made a prediction and it appears to be at odds with observational evidence. If you want to prove me wrong you are welcome to present your own analysis of the experiment.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The change in escape velocity over those distances is about 0.01926m/s. A factor of 10,000 larger than the speed required to offset gravitational blueshift.

    And that still leaves the issue that when the experiment was reversed in orientation there was no need to suddenly add 10km/s to the speed of the source to offset flow.

    So if you are going to continue to assert that your flow model is compatible with the Pound Rebka experiment you are going to have to show that it is. Otherwise this can be taken as a falsification of your ideas - you've made a prediction and it appears to be at odds with observational evidence. If you want to prove me wrong you are welcome to present your own analysis of the experiment.
    what did you take 'r' and 'r+h' as ?

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The change in escape velocity over those distances is about 0.01926m/s. A factor of 10,000 larger than the speed required to offset gravitational blueshift.

    And that still leaves the issue that when the experiment was reversed in orientation there was no need to suddenly add 10km/s to the speed of the source to offset flow.
    how you got the 10000 factor we must check, which I cannot at the moment.
    and if these guys reversed the apparatus in a vertical plane that will not create any meaningful result, because of deformation of the chassis and components which is normally >> wavelength.
    that's why water underwater was preferred.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Ok
    From now on I will be posting about flow models' approach to cosmology since I'm kind of repeating myself.
    Interferometry, water setup, pound-rebka etc will be answered later..
    Thx.
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-13 at 09:08 AM.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    GALAXY ROTATION CURVES and DARK MATTER
    Flow Model’s solution for the dark matter problem is based on the frame dragging effect, which was confirmed in the last decade. We know that at the center of every significant galaxy, lies a supermassive blackhole spinning at extreme speeds. This spin also drags space with an angular speed inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, converging to the speed of light near the event horizon. In the flow model, this introduces a tangential component for the gravitational acceleration vector, which gets comparable and even surpasses the radial component, as one gets closer to the blackhole. (An anology can be made with whirling water in a sink). This results in a smaller than expected (radial) gravitational effect and thus less orbital speed for nearby stars, as opposed to an (almost) pure radial vector and normal orbital speeds, for stars at the outskirts of the galaxy. Relevant equations can be derived by adapting the flow vector to Kerr Metric. This approach has important consequences:
    1) Central blackholes (galactic centers) are much heavier than previously calculated.
    2) Stars at the outskirts (right end of the galaxy rotation curve) give a better indication of galactic center’s mass.
    3) Dark matter is not necessary to explain flat galaxy rotation curves and extra gravitational lensing.
    Same reasoning is also valid for galaxy clusters. Please note that the above summarized approach can also be applied to General Relativity via skewed/warped gravitational field lines due to frame dragging, albeit with more limited effects. It is also highly possible that frame dragging has a significant effect on the shape of (especially) spiral galaxies.
    This model employed some reverse engineering and math is not presented at this stage.
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-13 at 02:55 PM.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,718

    I think it is better to get all the questions answered, before you go into another ATM topic here.
    This is not the place or the time to start a discussion on galaxy rotation curves and dark matter.
    So please save it for your next ATM.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Tusenfem,
    with all due respect,
    this phenomenon is a direct result of the flow theory.
    so I believe this is the best place to analyse it.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Tusenfem,
    with all due respect,
    this phenomenon is a direct result of the flow theory.
    so I believe this is the best place to analyse it.

    As not even your experiment is verified I think that needs to be settled first.
    Also your comment "no math involved" seems to me highly illogical for this kind of discussion.
    It will not be discussed in this thread, if you do not agree, report this post, no in thread discussions on moderation.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Ok
    From now on I will be posting about flow models' approach to cosmology since I'm kind of repeating myself.
    Interferometry, water setup, pound-rebka etc will be answered later..
    Thx.
    These questions and details about the setup have been answered many times, in posts to different members.
    However it is very time consuming for me to repeat the same descriptions and also explain basic concepts of interferometry, material science, so on..
    ".. etc will be answered later.." above should read as "duplicate questions will be answered later"...
    sorry for the ambiguity.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    what did you take 'r' and 'r+h' as ?
    Radius of the Earth and Radius of the Earth + 22m.

    The factor of 10,000 is the order of magnitude difference between the difference in escape velocities and the speed of the source required to offset the gravitational blue shift.

    As for the chassis deformation idea - sorry but that is completely unrelated. The distance is irrelevant, this is not interferometry. What is critical is the motion of the source and the energy levels of the nucleonic transitions - neither of which deform. So we can conclude that the observed results contradict your ideas. And strongly.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Radius of the Earth and Radius of the Earth + 22m.

    The factor of 10,000 is the order of magnitude difference between the difference in escape velocities and the speed of the source required to offset the gravitational blue shift.

    As for the chassis deformation idea - sorry but that is completely unrelated. The distance is irrelevant, this is not interferometry. What is critical is the motion of the source and the energy levels of the nucleonic transitions - neither of which deform. So we can conclude that the observed results contradict your ideas. And strongly.
    I believe your misconception still continues..
    When you reverse the equipment you would climb up the g-well, so the difference btw g-potentials matters.
    Similarly the difference btw flow speeds matter.
    Total flow speed is irrelevant..
    Just think that you are already in uniform motion wrt the flowing frame and you' ll just have to accelerate by escape velocity's diffetence in a height of 22 meters..
    That will be your energy change.
    Again, absolute flow speed of ref frame is not important, its acceleration that is important.

    And are you using the correct formula?
    It involves more than escape velocities..

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    GALAXY ROTATION CURVES and DARK MATTER
    Flow Model’s solution for the dark matter problem is based on the frame dragging effect, which was confirmed in the last decade.
    Frame dragging experiment (gravity probe b) was one of the longest development, most pains-taking, experiment ever, and it took years to collect the data, and a year to analyze. The effect is almost undetectable. Your experiment doesn't seem to be related.

    We know that at the center of every significant galaxy, lies a supermassive blackhole spinning at extreme speeds. This spin also drags space with an angular speed inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, converging to the speed of light near the event horizon. In the flow model, this introduces a tangential component for the gravitational acceleration vector, which gets comparable and even surpasses the radial component, as one gets closer to the blackhole. (An anology can be made with whirling water in a sink). This results in a smaller than expected (radial) gravitational effect and thus less orbital speed for nearby stars, as opposed to an (almost) pure radial vector and normal orbital speeds, for stars at the outskirts of the galaxy. Relevant equations can be derived by adapting the flow vector to Kerr Metric. This approach has important consequences:
    1) Central blackholes (galactic centers) are much heavier than previously calculated.
    2) Stars at the outskirts (right end of the galaxy rotation curve) give a better indication of galactic center’s mass.
    3) Dark matter is not necessary to explain flat galaxy rotation curves and extra gravitational lensing.
    Same reasoning is also valid for galaxy clusters. Please note that the above summarized approach can also be applied to General Relativity via skewed/warped gravitational field lines due to frame dragging, albeit with more limited effects. It is also highly possible that frame dragging has a significant effect on the shape of (especially) spiral galaxies.
    This model employed some reverse engineering and math is not presented at this stage.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    I believe your misconception still continues..
    When you reverse the equipment you would climb up the g-well, so the difference btw g-potentials matters.
    Similarly the difference btw flow speeds matter.
    Total flow speed is irrelevant..
    Just think that you are already in uniform motion wrt the flowing frame and you' ll just have to accelerate by escape velocity's diffetence in a height of 22 meters..
    That will be your energy change.
    Again, absolute flow speed of ref frame is not important, its acceleration that is important.

    And are you using the correct formula?
    It involves more than escape velocities..
    Show us then. Work through and analyse the experiment, showing that the results of it are consistent with your experiment.

    I am using exactly the values you told me to in order to derive those numbers. Not the total flow speed, the difference between them.

    As for the adding or subtracting of the flow speed - this falls directly out of your equation for the energy of a photon and your statement that nucleonic energy levels were not affected. So again, please provide a clarifying model if I am so mistaken.

    All of this back and forth could be avoided if you just presented something more than handwaving. If you have the model that backs up your claims then present it. Prove I am wrong, in detail.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Frame dragging experiment (gravity probe b) was one of the longest development, most pains-taking, experiment ever, and it took years to collect the data, and a year to analyze. The effect is almost undetectable. Your experiment doesn't seem to be related.
    Yes it took years to design and complete the experiment apparently..and I quote this from wiki:
    "On May 4, 2011, the Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced the final report,[29] and in it the data from GP-B demonstrated the frame-dragging effect with an error of about 19 percent, and Einstein's predicted value was at the center of the confidence interval."
    so I think, we just have to accept the equations..You are correct in saying that it is negligible near earth but when you take a supermassive blackhole say 2 bio solar masses spinning close to the limit, its effect will be huge..

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Show us then. Work through and analyse the experiment, showing that the results of it are consistent with your experiment.

    I am using exactly the values you told me to in order to derive those numbers. Not the total flow speed, the difference between them.

    As for the adding or subtracting of the flow speed - this falls directly out of your equation for the energy of a photon and your statement that nucleonic energy levels were not affected. So again, please provide a clarifying model if I am so mistaken.

    All of this back and forth could be avoided if you just presented something more than handwaving. If you have the model that backs up your claims then present it. Prove I am wrong, in detail.
    I haven't told you anything to use Shaula..I gave the basic concepts..
    just work on the basics a little bit and please watch your fury..

  17. #107
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Yes it took years to design and complete the experiment apparently..and I quote this from wiki:
    "On May 4, 2011, the Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced the final report,[29] and in it the data from GP-B demonstrated the frame-dragging effect with an error of about 19 percent, and Einstein's predicted value was at the center of the confidence interval."
    so I think, we just have to accept the equations..You are correct in saying that it is negligible near earth but when you take a supermassive blackhole say 2 bio solar masses spinning close to the limit, its effect will be huge..
    I thought you were saying that that was the basis of your calculations in the OP, for your experiment.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I thought you were saying that that was the basis of your calculations in the OP, for your experiment.
    I did not get you sorry..

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    what I am saying is, this frame dragging effect combined with hypermassive central blackholes will save us from the idea of dark matter.
    please think about it. They are probably much more massive than we think..because we cant correctly measure their gravitational effects, upto a certain point in the galaxy..

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I thought you were saying that that was the basis of your calculations in the OP, for your experiment.
    oh now I understand what you mean..
    no my exp is not directly related, but flow is..
    like the whirpool analogy,ıt is a result of the theory that's it...

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    I haven't told you anything to use Shaula..I gave the basic concepts..
    just work on the basics a little bit and please watch your fury..
    Tempeststrawberry,

    Please watch your accusations of "fury" or other inappropriate behavior. I see nothing in any of Shaula's post that even slightly resemble "fury". And if someone does post a furious post, it is not your place to point it out. Report the post and leave the moderating to the moderators.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Another error in your statements (we've dealt with the Twin Paradox) about relativity you should address in a second print:
    I'm pretty sure that this issue has not been dealt with. The OP's last position on the twin "Paradox" seemed to be to commit to believing in the "paradox" and to refuse to ever do any mathematics related to it because she or he could simply intuit the results of the mathematics. I fear the same sort of reasoning is going on here. I, too, would like to see some explicit calculations from the OP in this thread.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
    I'm pretty sure that this issue has not been dealt with. The OP's last position on the twin "Paradox" seemed to be to commit to believing in the "paradox" and to refuse to ever do any mathematics related to it because she or he could simply intuit the results of the mathematics. I fear the same sort of reasoning is going on here. I, too, would like to see some explicit calculations from the OP in this thread.
    I had given the equation to another member and explained it in detail..everyone has access to it..however our friend here had problems with fundementals, which I tried to correct a couple of times in good faith..anybody can see this in the thread..
    But if you guys have somekind of prejudice agst me just because I have different views, that's another thing..

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    .
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-13 at 07:37 PM.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    The revised energy equation E=h*(c+v)*f/c can be used, which has a dopplershift adjustment factor, either for a moving observer or for a flowing frame. If you plug in the heights and solve for frequencies (without the Doppler adjustment factor) acc to Relativity equations, you’ll get the blueshift. If you keep the frequency constant and solve for flow speed (v) at heights r and (r+h), you’ll get √(2GM/r) and √(2GM/(r+h)) rationally, providing you with the confirmation. Now if you ask me to do this step-by-step, I can’t help you today or tomorrow especially with this funny text editor and other posting activity. But when I have sometime, I'll try.
    posted to realitycheck yesterday..

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    I had given the equation to another member and explained it in detail..everyone has access to it..however our friend here had problems with fundementals, which I tried to correct a couple of times in good faith..anybody can see this in the thread..
    But if you guys have somekind of prejudice agst me just because I have different views, that's another thing..
    Enough. Present, defend, and answer questions about your claims. No more meta discussion. No more in-thread complaints. No more side tracks. No more snide remarks. This goes for everyone.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Dear thread participants,
    You can find my theoretical explanation for Pound-Rebka exp and the relevant equation above..
    pls do not hesitate to ask questions.
    thx

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Dear thread participants,
    You can find my theoretical explanation for Pound-Rebka exp and the relevant equation above..
    pls do not hesitate to ask questions.
    thx
    OK. Please present your calculations for the size of the effect you would expect to see that shows that your claim that the Pound Rebka experiment is in agreement with your ideas is a valid one. Please show me why my calculations were wrong.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    OK. Please present your calculations for the size of the effect you would expect to see that shows that your claim that the Pound Rebka experiment is in agreement with your ideas is a valid one. Please show me why my calculations were wrong.
    from generalized energy equation E=h*f*(c+v)/c (this could be written in a more handsome way but not here..)
    relativity uses E=hf (keeping c constant),
    flow uses E=h*f*(c+v)/c keeping f constant (and v is the frame flow speed).

    so your redshift/blueshift will be calculated acc to f(r)/f(r+h)
    and my flowspeed difference will be calculated acc to (c+v(r))/(c+v(r+h)) which reduces to (c+sqrt(2GM/r))/(c+sqrt(2GM/(r+h)))

    no need to calculate or plug in numbers or hassle..its sort of duality.
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-13 at 08:16 PM.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    no need to calculate or plug in numbers or hassle..its sort of duality.
    I am asking you to plug in the numbers. You'd equated the flow speed to the escape velocity in previous posts. Do you now retract that? Because the point is that if flow speed is equivalent to escape velocity then the numbers don't work. The crux of the experiment is that you have to move the source to cancel out the effects the mainstream put down to gravitational blueshift and you put down to flow. So we have a very precise figure for the source speed that leads to the energy shift we see. And it is much smaller than the difference in escape velocities. So what is the resolution of this apparent issue with your ideas?

Posting Permissions

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