Perhaps M&M should have designed their experiment to look for change in catalytic rates. My premise is that the ether moves on the time axis equally displaced from all spatial dimensions [Neo Lorentzian]. Changes in this rate at which ether intersects with our spatial axis are undetectable from within an inertial frame and can only be determined by relative measure to uncover time dilation. The known relationship between velocity and C would then explain the lack of ether drift or time dilation due to motion thru space because the earths orbit around the sun is such a small fraction of C. My relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect and catalytic action however proposes that these properties are due to reduced vacuum energy density and that reactants therefore appear accelerated via time dilation from our perspective. We at normal energy density appear accelerated to near luminal equivalent velocity relative to the negatively accelerated reactants inside a catalyst making us equivalent to the space faring twin but instead of us returning to the stationary twin, It is the negatively accelerated reactant that returns from the catalyst to find we outside havent aged at all while years have elapsed from its perspective. My point is that etheric drift should be measured as time dilation not velocity and that it remains negligible at our scale.
Fran [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 froarty572 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:06:51 -0800 I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C . Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space but the M&M experiment has no way to physically place the second mirror on the time axis. Regards Fran · [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 froarty572 o <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37439.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Stephen A. Lawrence § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37444.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Mauro Lacy § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37446.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Gibson Elliot § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37450.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Mauro Lacy § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37468.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Gibson Elliot § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37458.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Stephen A. Lawrence § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37462.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Mauro Lacy § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37464.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Stephen A. Lawrence § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37466.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Mauro Lacy § <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37467.html> Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 Stephen A. Lawrence
