|
Post by whistler on Sept 20, 2005 2:17:43 GMT
Jonathon, Russell etc, you quote many worthy books and authors written full of big hard to spell words..
On a simple Base level, why can't we have "Parallel Universes", and indeed why can't we have somebody in the next Universe doing almost the same thing as we are doing, wondering where the particle goes to. We have a Century 21 Real Estate ad on the Tv. With an agent in Auckland Banging his For sale sign into the ground, as soon as he hammers it in, it starts to rise up again. the camera moves to a Century 21 Agent in China doing the same. the we have the split screen showing both agents, as one hammers his sign down, the end pushes out the sign of the ground in the other place So the other fellows bangs it back. etc Could a Real Estate Sign become a bridge into a Parallel Universe.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 20, 2005 3:18:22 GMT
Whistler Your basic concept is not too bad - if a little unspecific. The most technical discussion I have seen on the mechanics of parallel worlds is by someone who claims to have been an engineer on the Philadelphia Experiment and connected with Montauk www.bielek.com/The video I saw of one of his talks was the first technical explanation that I have seen of electrically based time travel and invisibility. Assuming such technology exists (and there are plenty of claimed eye witnesses) then it is likely held tightly by the military. Of course it may well be possible to do the same things by consciousness - although taking a physical ship along seems an advanced exercise. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Sept 22, 2005 0:08:28 GMT
I have been chided by Russell for not concluding the discussion about the M-M experiment, which proved damaging for the theory of the 'luminiferous aether'.
The upshot is this, and it's mightily abridged, if only to stop this becoming too obstruse.
The M-M experiment *set out* to prove the existence of the aether. The logic of the experiment is clear and simple: if aether is the medium through which light travels, that medium is likely to have an effect on the light (Maxwell's work in the 1870s introduces this). Whilst setting out to show this difference, the M-M experiments showed the famous, and unexpected, 'null result', which proved so problematical for the the theory of the aether. Expressed simply, whether the light beam was aimed across the movement of the postulated 'aether wind', against the flow, or with it, no change in the apparent phase of the recombined light beams could be seen. Even allowing for experimental error, the aether was having no appreciable effect on the light beam.
The experiment has been repeated with refinements since then, to remove even more experimental error, and the trend has been the same. Even radically different experiments using capacitance (Trouton-Noble, 1903) have failed to indicate the expected results.
Although Lorentz suggested a formula that could explain this lack of phase difference by a compression of parts of the experimental apparatus, the actual need for a medium of transmission for light has been removed by relativity and quantum physics.
To round up your queries: Was their experiment sufficiently sensitive: Yes. Subsequent versions of the experiment have been much more sensitive, and still show the same 'null result'. Was the experiment faulty: No, the method, and reasoning, was sound. The speed of light is the same...: Maxwell's work in the 1870s show this can't be the case. The wind does not exist: Various experiments postulated a sort of 'Aether drag', but they also failed to show any other effect. Aether does not exist: now understood to be the simplest explanation.
It is up to you to prefer to believe that you can see the aether by pulling your fingers apart. I'd prefer to think that if phase differences cannot be seen with apparatus capable of resolving 1/1500th of a wavelength, I'm unlikely to see a bluish tinge between my fingertips.
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 22, 2005 0:23:14 GMT
For Jonathan, Russell and Whistler
Thought you might find this quite interesting with relation to the Philadelphia Experiment....which was, from memory, the scientists mucking around with electro magnetic and other types of waves with the view to forming an artificial field which would render ships invisible to radar. Problem was they rendered the ship invisible - full stop.
..."Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki, Science and Engineering Laboratory of Waseda University, succeeded in his experiment to create a quiet soundless space in a room filled with music. This is a new silencing method using cancelling sound that counteracts noise.
Be it music or human voice, each has an intrinsic wave. The basic principle of this new silencing method is to examine the wave shape of peak and valleys of a sound to be silenced and produce a sound that has the opposite wave shape of peaks and valleys.
The experiment was conducted in a room of seven tatami mats (126 square feet). They analysed the wave shape of music from one speaker and created the opposite wave shape to the original sound through the other speakers to study the silencing effects.
The result was that the sound disappeared completely at the targeted spot. At the site a couple of inches away from the targeted spot, the major components of male voices and music sounds, which are lower than several hundred Hertz, were also cut. By increasing the number of silencing speakers, it is expected to be able to expand the soundless area.
Extract from "The True Power of Water" by Masaru Emoto.
Cheers Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 22, 2005 1:31:52 GMT
Maat
>with the view to forming an artificial field which would render ships invisible to radar.
Apparently the first experiment left a large hole in the water where the ship still was invisibly.
But the second experiment resulted in the hole filling up - the ship was plain gone.
Apparently control is better these days and with integrated circuits, quite small apparatus is sufficient. Reputed to be used in stealth fighters. And even at a human level.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 22, 2005 1:42:45 GMT
Jonathon
>if aether is the medium through which light travels, that medium is LIKELY to have an effect on the light
Exactly the point. What if it does not?
>Was the experiment faulty: No, the method, and reasoning, was sound
Jonathon you are clearly better than I am at proving reasoning sound. The best I can do is spot errors in assumptions and deductions.
>Various experiments postulated a sort of 'Aether drag', but they also failed to show any other effect.
Is failure to demonstrate an effect proof of its absence? Perhaps it demonstrates a defect in methodology.
>Aether does not exist: now understood to be the simplest explanation
Being simplest for particular scientific minds may not constitute a proof for other minds
I remain with my proposition that the MM experiment purported to disprove the existence of aether.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 22, 2005 4:00:17 GMT
I should perhaps say that Michelson and Morley seemed to use the simple analogy of ripples on a river in devising their experiment on the propagation of light through a postulated aether.
That was a reasonable thing to do in that day unless one were connected to Theosophical circles.
But later it was discovered that light had particle properties as well. And later it was discovered that electrons also have both wave and particle properties and can do something referred to as "tunnelling" effect.
"the tunneling effect refers to various processes whereby particles appear to violate classical physics by instantaneously changing their location within the space-time continuum without passing observably through the intervening space." - Note the commonplace analogy that is used to name something that is quite strange. The commonplace name gives us permission not to enquire further.
Once these things had been observed it was clear (at least to me) that the simple physical analogy used to set up the MM experiment was deficient.
But this is not a fault of MM. Rather the following generations of physicists did not, in general, take the time to re-evaluate the premises of the experiment. Hence it remains a cornerstone of popular physics.
I make no such comment on military physics.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Sept 22, 2005 13:12:22 GMT
Russell,
Sorry, but they *didn't* use the principle of ripples on water. They illustrated the method by the analogy of two swimmers - one swimming along a river, one across it. I think you're confusing this with the interference experiments, which use the cancellation of peaks and troughs to indicate light as a wave form. Thus if you use this as your argument that their method was deficient, this is incorrect.
It's still accurate to say that the M-M experiment did not purport to show the non-existence of the aether. Their 'null result' was totally unexpected, especially to them as they *expected* to find an effect. It's a good case for experiments providing completely conflicting data with what you thought you would see. It's to their credit that M-M published the findings for others to criticise or replicate in order to disprove their conclusion (mind you, seeing as by now the experimental apparatus was sitting in a bath of mercury on top of a granite block in a basement, hiding the results might not have been an option. I wonder if they considered it - 'Here Morley, you smash up the granite with this lump hammer, while I pour the mercury into this handy bucket...'?).
Your middle paragraph also confuses the issue further. Part of the special theory of relativity showed that there was no need for a medium of transmission of light (the aether), and 'tunnelling effect' experiments have proved this. If you accept this, which I assume you do by the paragraph, the case for the aether disappears into its own little singularity.
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 22, 2005 20:03:18 GMT
Jonathon I am pleasantly surprised. By the way, the concept of a "correct answer" might need to be considered in light of the work of Thomas Kuhn on scientific paradigms. Cheers Russell What a wonderful rumble this topic has become. Quoting all these " Smart " Guys. wow There is a more simple way to understand than reading all those heavy tombs. As Russell well knows the veil is very thin, and much goes on, on either side of that veil. Each of us have varying skill at seeing the other side of that veil. The stage of evolution, by those on each side of that veil, totally varied. Remember, when everything is in tune it is possible for a medium, to tell you in detail everyday events that took place in your life twenty years ago. I say everything in tune, because it is a cooperative event between the medium, and those the other side of the veil. It is not possible to demand such information. You might wonder where that information is stored Perhaps the same place as that pesky particle. All of which suggest that the answers for the tricky questions are available and are delivered to those who are ready to received them.. Going back to "what the Bleep do you know" My answer is you know everything. The question should be "What the Bleep have you forgotten"
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Sept 22, 2005 22:29:07 GMT
'Heavy tombs'?
Et in Arcadia Ego?
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 23, 2005 1:55:28 GMT
'Heavy tombs'? Et in Arcadia Ego? Jonathan As in The text in the tombs are from the Book of the Dead, the Book of the Gates and the Book of the Underworld.
|
|