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

1. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
what creates the energy change in flow model will be the miniscule change in flow speed,
Did you read about the Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates? They can be interpreted as space flowing, which seems to be what you are talking about.

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.
That looks like a very simple calculation, so why not check if you get the same results or not?

2. yes you had sent me but I could not have the time to check..however today someone else also told me the same and I'll check definitely.

3. Originally Posted by Shaula
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?
no, flow equals esc velocity of course..
I can do this exercise only tomorrow as it is midnight now...

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
I do not know why this pound-rebka staff is all that important to you...
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.

Making up a formula and then doing nothing with it is not an answer to the questions.

5. Originally Posted by Reality Check
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.

Making up a formula and then doing nothing with it is not an answer to the questions.
friends I hate to say this buy please compare your f(r)/f(r+h) formula with what I have given you and tell me do you still want me to plug in the numbers ?

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
I forgot how many times I have written these things..
You need to remember what you wrote in that post, Tempeststrawberry.
You can count the reflections in the mirror, because inside of the cylinder is empty.
Not a formal question yet but: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water?

7. Originally Posted by Reality Check
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.

Making up a formula and then doing nothing with it is not an answer to the questions.
Please compare your f(r)/f(r+h) formula with what I have given you and tell me do you still want me to plug in the numbers ?

8. Originally Posted by Reality Check
You need to remember what you wrote in that post, Tempeststrawberry.

Not a formal question yet but: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water?
and I quote you:
"There should be no reflections to count in an actual Michelson interferometer because they are constructed so that every reflection hits the same spot to create an interference pattern" meaning you don't have the slightest clue how an interferometer actually works..why should I even bother to answer..

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
GALAXY ROTATION CURVES and DARK MATTER
Sorry, Tempeststrawberry, but this post is just unsupported assertions and has some ignorance.
Frame dragging is a GR effect. You have no evidence that frame dragging exists in your "flow model" mainly because you do not have a model!
Frame dragging causes objects to precess - it does not make move them along in their orbit.
Frame-dragging
In the case of stars orbiting close to a spinning, supermassive black hole, frame dragging should cause the star's orbital plane to precess about the black hole spin axis. This effect should be detectable within the next few years via astrometric monitoring of stars at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.[32] By comparing the rate of orbital precession of two stars on different orbits, it is possible in principle to test the no-hair theorems of general relativity, in addition to measuring the spin of the black hole.[33]
The calculations that visible matter cannot explain galaxy rotation curves is Newtonian mechanics. This is because there are low velocities and weak gravitational fields.
The supermassive black hole at the centers of galaxies are very visible - they emit x-rays which is how that are detected! They are part of the visible mass that cannot account for galaxy rotation curves.
The supermassive black hole at the centers of galaxies are a tiny part of the galaxy masses.
The supermassive black hole at the centers of galaxies have gravitational fields that only have effects out to some tens or hundreds of light years, e.g. the Sun is not orbiting our supermassive black hole.

Extending the very limited effects of supermassive black holes to outside of galaxies (galaxy clusters) denies the fact that gravity is an inverse square law.

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
...tell me do you still want me to plug in the numbers ?
Yes - that is question IF02! This should be easy because you will have already done that in order to make your assertion. Cut and past your calculation.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-13 at 09:19 PM.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.
IF03: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water?

The posts so far imply that the answer to IF01 is you have no derivation of an equation from your flow model - you just made up a formula. If that is the case then say so.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
and I quote you:
...
This is a Michelson interferometer. A basic interferometer will send a beam through the splitter to each mirror. The mirrors in a basic interferometer will be aligned so that their beams so to the same spot on the detector so that the light can interfere. There are no multiple reflections in mirrors in a basic interferometer.

13. Originally Posted by Reality Check
You need to remember what you wrote in that post, Tempeststrawberry.

Not a formal question yet but: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water?
Apparently it is impossible to communicate, since you do not read what is addressed to you and just like to make bold accusations..
I have already answered twice what "empty" meant in that specific context, and remind you one could also count the same 60 reflections when the cylinder was "really" empty; i.e. when it was outside.
I will not comment on your views about frame dragging, central blackholes etc.. since answers are obvious.
I just wonder how many of us will seriously consider that this is the only way out of the "dark matter" problem..

In any case I think this thread served its purpose to suggest that there might be alternatives to relativity, without overturning the theoretical infrastructure.
Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-14 at 09:46 AM.

14. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Apparently it is impossible to communicate, since you do not read what is addressed to you and just like to make bold accusations..
Tempeststrawberry,

I warned you not to make such comments about other members. This time, you'll get an infraction.

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
I have already answered twice what "empty" meant in that specific context, and remind you one could also count the same 60 reflections when the cylinder was "really" empty; i.e. when it was outside.
The only posts with the word empty in them is your original post and my question about what you mean by "empty" when you state that apparatus is under water. An obvious answer would be that you counted the reflections when the apparatus was outside of the pool. But you have the phrase "could also" in this post. So we still have
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.
IF03: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water? (obvious answer - you measured the reflections when the cylinder was outside of the pool and empty)

The this post is just unsupported assertions and has some ignorance post states what frame dragging is, that galaxy rotation curves are calculated from Newtonian gravity, and the facts about central black holes.

The Milky Way's central black hole at Sagittarius A* has a measured mass of about 4 million solar masses. The Milky Way has an estimated mass of about 1012 solar masses. Sagittarius A* is a millionth of the mass of the Milky Way. It certainly does not influence any stars outside of the central bulge, e.g. the Sun. The stars that have been observed to be orbiting Sagittarius A* are all well within 1 light year (0.06 light years is the largest semimajor axis).

16. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,741
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
In any case I think this thread served its purpose to suggest that there might be alternatives to relativity, without overturning the theoretical infrastructure.
This thread is about a flow model that would completely overthrow the curved spacetime of GR. The ATM idea actually suggests that all of the mathematics of GR is wrong since that math does not include any flow of spacetime.
An alternative to relativity would be a theory that is shown to be Lorentz invariant. You started with equations in Euclidean space ("V(flow) = √(2GM/r) (2)" ), not very different from Newton and non-relativistic. You have one equation for gravitational redshift that somehow pops out from the flow model.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
1,643
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
Hi friends,
Results are interesting/unexpected. Light is always delayed in the vertical arm whether it is pointing up or down
Is your device amenable to effectively operating horizontally underwater? If so, with what result: absolutely null, or a small velocity detected?
Last edited by wd40; 2017-Mar-15 at 03:45 AM.

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
6,747
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
... and remind you one could also count the same 60 reflections when the cylinder was "really" empty; i.e. when it was outside...
But I thought the fatal flaw with other MM experiments was that the apparatus deformed under its own weight, which was why you had to do this underwater?

Also - any sign of those numbers you were going to produce to show that your ideas are not completely at odds with experimental evidence?

Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-15 at 05:56 AM.

20. Originally Posted by Reality Check
The only posts with the word empty in them is your original post and my question about what you mean by "empty" when you state that apparatus is under water. An obvious answer would be that you counted the reflections when the apparatus was outside of the pool. But you have the phrase "could also" in this post. So we still have
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.
IF03: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water? (obvious answer - you measured the reflections when the cylinder was outside of the pool and empty)

The this post is just unsupported assertions and has some ignorance post states what frame dragging is, that galaxy rotation curves are calculated from Newtonian gravity, and the facts about central black holes.

The Milky Way's central black hole at Sagittarius A* has a measured mass of about 4 million solar masses. The Milky Way has an estimated mass of about 1012 solar masses. Sagittarius A* is a millionth of the mass of the Milky Way. It certainly does not influence any stars outside of the central bulge, e.g. the Sun. The stars that have been observed to be orbiting Sagittarius A* are all well within 1 light year (0.06 light years is the largest semimajor axis).

I return the term "ignorance" back to you, because you are apparently unable to read..

Post # 87 :
"cylinder is under water, and it is full of water and that is why you use 400nm for green light..
"empty" term was used to denote that equipment was accessible, i.e. unobstructed to reach..
Interference pattern is created at the final stage.
if you check figure 1, you'll see that it is a very efficient design.
Also check MM experiment and see how they achieved their armlength by reflections.

21. Originally Posted by Shaula
But I thought the fatal flaw with other MM experiments was that the apparatus deformed under its own weight, which was why you had to do this underwater?

Also - any sign of those numbers you were going to produce to show that your ideas are not completely at odds with experimental evidence?
Yes of course, that was the whole idea expressed repeatedly here..
as I said, I intend to produce working numbers for your experiment before thread expires. I might possibly deliver in an attachment where I can express formulas properly.

22. Originally Posted by wd40
Is your device amenable to effectively operating horizontally underwater? If so, with what result: absolutely null, or a small velocity detected?
Yes it is. That configuration was always tested before rotating in the vertical plane.
0 degrees is taken as the starting reference, and as for 180 the average was 0.02 wavelengths..max was 0.04 according to my notes, and I interpret that as experimental error.
I cannot talk abt any significant shift in the horizontal position.

23. Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
I return the term "ignorance" back to you, because you are apparently unable to read.
You've been warned to stop these kinds of comments. Your next infraction for this kind of behavior is likely to see you suspended. Please stop now.

24. Originally Posted by Reality Check
The only posts with the word empty in them is your original post and my question about what you mean by "empty" when you state that apparatus is under water. An obvious answer would be that you counted the reflections when the apparatus was outside of the pool. But you have the phrase "could also" in this post. So we still have
IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.
IF03: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water? (obvious answer - you measured the reflections when the cylinder was outside of the pool and empty)

The this post is just unsupported assertions and has some ignorance post states what frame dragging is, that galaxy rotation curves are calculated from Newtonian gravity, and the facts about central black holes.

The Milky Way's central black hole at Sagittarius A* has a measured mass of about 4 million solar masses. The Milky Way has an estimated mass of about 1012 solar masses. Sagittarius A* is a millionth of the mass of the Milky Way. It certainly does not influence any stars outside of the central bulge, e.g. the Sun. The stars that have been observed to be orbiting Sagittarius A* are all well within 1 light year (0.06 light years is the largest semimajor axis).
Has GR explained flat galaxy rotation curves without resorting to dark matter, about which we dont have a clue??
I'll revoke my claims if that is the case.

Your measurement of 4 million solar masses depends on velocities and/or rotation periods around the central BH. It is way less than what it actually should be due to skewed/warped gravitational acceleration vector in that region, as a result of extreme frame dragging (tangential component eats up from the radial one).
Many central blackholes reach a mass of a couple of billions of solar masses and sag A seems to be a small one in that sense. But when you include the central bulge and consider the apparent fallacy in (under)estimating the central mass, frame dragging will play a significant role.

This part is important:
As you go out from the center, frame dragging effect (angular proportional to 1/r3, tangential 1/r2) becomes insignificant in field models, because each coordinate is only concerned by the local value of the field equation.
However in a fluid model, flow vector at each coordinate is also effected (directionwise) by flow vectors at adjacent coordinates, since flow has to be continuous (e.g. whirl in the sink).
This carries the effect of FD way out, as opposed to GR...

why do spiral galaxies look like a whirlpool ???

so to summarize,
calculate the mass of the galaxy and the galactic center according to the rotation of outer stars..
that will be much closer to reality..
no need for the elusive "dark matter".
Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-15 at 03:19 PM.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
6,747
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
why do spiral galaxies look like a whirlpool ???
How do you deal with the winding problem in this case?

Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
so to summarize,
calculate the mass of the galaxy and the galactic center according to the rotation of outer stars..
that will be much closer to reality..
no need for the elusive "dark matter".
But then the inner stars will be predicted to move considerably faster than they are observed to. Have you done this calculation? Can you support these claims? Are you using your claimed frame dragging effects to slow the inner stars down?

26. Originally Posted by Shaula

But then the inner stars will be predicted to move considerably faster than they are observed to. Have you done this calculation? Can you support these claims? Are you using your claimed frame dragging effects to slow the inner stars down?
yes, I am using my claimed FD effects to slow the inner stars down, due to a trimmed radial acceleration vector..
obviously this seemed like a contradiction to me first, because of the tangential component introduced which should gradually force the star out of orbit..
but this will definitely be countered by the slower FD precession of the new (outer) locality, producing a deceleration (negative feedback) and resulting at an equilibrium.

As I mentioned before, this is a concept about the mechanics, calculations must be made..

The "winding problem" should evidently be solved by the flat rotation curve itself..
Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-15 at 08:24 AM.

27. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,652
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
yes, I am using my claimed FD effects to slow the inner stars down, due to a trimmed radial acceleration vector..
Without calculations, you are making an unsupported assertion.

obviously this seemed like a contradicition to me first, because of the tangential component introduced which should gradually force the star out of orbit..
but this will definitely be resisted by the slower FD precession of the new locality, producing a deceleration and setting an equilibrium.

As I mentioned before, this is a concept about the mechanics, calculations must be made..
[boldface mine] As above, without having done these calculations, you are making an unsupported assertion.

The "winding problem" should evidently be solved by the flat rotation curve itself..
Source, please. Or is this another unsupported assertion?

28. pls see below..
Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-15 at 08:01 AM.

29. Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
Without calculations, you are making an unsupported assertion.

[boldface mine] As above, without having done these calculations, you are making an unsupported assertion.

Source, please. Or is this another unsupported assertion?
It is better than "doing nothing at all"..

As above, it is better than "doing nothing at all"..

no, this is a logical result since my claim does not object but aims to explain the observations (i.e. flat rotation curves)..
if there is indeed a problem, it is not introduced by my assertions..
so, not my problem...
Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-15 at 09:11 AM.

30. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,652
Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry
It is better than "doing nothing at all"..

As above, it is better than "doing nothing at all"..
Without calculations, that is yet another unsupported assertion.

no, this is a logical result since my claim does not object but indeed confirm the observations (i.e. flat rotation curves)..
Again, without calculations, you may not legitimately make such claims.

#### Posting Permissions

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