#### fisherman

• 34
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2020, 09:51:24 PM »
Quote
Gravity is not in any way an acceleration.

according to the accelerometer on my phone it is.  Interesting experiment I just did.  The app I have allows you to ignore or include gravity.  When I used gravity and place the phone face up on the floor, it showed -1g.  When I ignored gravity, it showed 0g.

Wondering how UA would account for those results?

Quote
the equivalence principle is preposterous coincidence as a lynch pin in mythology being disingenuously/erroneously presented as science.

Einstein solved the coincidence of the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass with GR by unifying inertia and gravity into one field, like the electromagnetic field.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2020, 06:53:07 AM »
@JSS

Quote
If you were taught that gravity travels faster than light then you were taught wrong and might need to revisit the subject.

I was taught that it must for the reasons I explained. You are welcome to try and explain how it can apply the correct and varying force to counter inertia of objects of varying weight instantaneously regardless of distance.  It does not take any time for "information" to travel, this is demonstrable.

Quote
Those waves travel at the speed of light,

Whatever ligo and its sister picked up did seem to be going at the speed of light, if we can trust any of that data (highly unlikely).  There is no gravity, they did not detect gravity, and interferometers measure motion. Trying to use them to measure something else is stupid and unscientific.

@fisherman

Look through this thread for toms water balloon diagram.  You missed it.

Quote
Einstein solved the coincidence of the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass with GR by unifying inertia and gravity into one field, like the electromagnetic field.

So he didn't so much "solve" the coincidence as depend on it further, working it into the fundamental fabric of the "theory"...

#### fisherman

• 34
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2020, 01:55:29 PM »
Quote
So he didn't so much "solve" the coincidence as depend on it further, working it into the fundamental fabric of the "theory".
.

GR, at its core is an explanation as to why inertial and gravitational mass are indistinguishable.  It's because they are the same thing. In a Nature article in 1921, AE said
Quote
Can gravitation and inertia be identical?  The question leads directly to the General Theory of Relativity.

In 1918, AE restated the equivalence principle as
Quote
" Inertia and gravity are phenomena identical in nature.  From this and from the special theory of relativity, it follows necessarily that the symmetric "fundamental tensor" determines the metric properties of space, the inertial behavior of bodies in this space, as well as the gravitational effects.  We shall call the state of space which is described by this fundamental tensor the "G field".

In other words, the reason bodies fall independent of their mass is because mass is not what determines their behavior.  The "G field" does.

This is not so different from the UA explanation, which is the acceleration of the earth that determines how things fall.  The difference is that Einstein's g-field has been experimentally verified as the the curvature of spacetime, and the acceleration of earth has not.

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2020, 04:16:14 PM »
@JSS

Quote
If you were taught that gravity travels faster than light then you were taught wrong and might need to revisit the subject.

I was taught that it must for the reasons I explained. You are welcome to try and explain how it can apply the correct and varying force to counter inertia of objects of varying weight instantaneously regardless of distance.  It does not take any time for "information" to travel, this is demonstrable.

Then you were not taught that gravity is instantaneous, you are misunderstanding how gravity works.  It is not demonstrable that gravity is instantaneous, in fact we have demonstrated the opposite.

Einstein's theories predict gravity moves ta the speed of light.  We have confirmed this in experiments and observations.

The most recent and most accurate used the timings of a neutron star collision in October of 2017. There were multiple different methods used, but the most accurate compared the time that we recorded the gamma ray burst with the time that we recorded the gravitational waves.

That method came up with a result of gravity moving somewhere between -0.0000000000000003% and 0.0000000000000007% of the speed of light.

Quote
Those waves travel at the speed of light,

Whatever ligo and its sister picked up did seem to be going at the speed of light, if we can trust any of that data (highly unlikely).  There is no gravity, they did not detect gravity, and interferometers measure motion. Trying to use them to measure something else is stupid and unscientific.

You should read up on what interferometers do and how they work, they don't measure motion, they measure distance.  I've used interferometers, I've even built my own.

If you don't think interferometers measure distance but measure something else instead, that might be the source of your confusion on this subject.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2020, 03:19:26 AM »
@JSS

Quote
It is not demonstrable that gravity is instantaneous, in fact we have demonstrated the opposite.

Absolutely untrue. What delay do you believe there is between dropping an object and its falling (too much looney toons?)?  You have been misinformed.  You are still talking about LIGO, but you don't know enough about it (due to propagandist mass advertising under the guise of science).  I am struggling to help you learn. You have an "adversarial" approach which is hindering you.  Discuss, don't debate.  Debate is not for intelligent people, and it has no place in effective communication or learning.

Quote
You should read up on what interferometers do and how they work, they don't measure motion, they measure distance.  I've used interferometers, I've even built my own.

Interferometers are not used (typically, anyhow) nor designed/invented to measure distance, why you think that is beyond me - especially with your claim that you've built one.  They are used to measure motion, which does - in fairness - correspond to an infinitesimal "distance" (distance between fringes).  Using a laser and timing its return for distance estimation is in no way an interferometer.  Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.

Quote
That method came up with a result of gravity moving somewhere between -0.0000000000000003% and 0.0000000000000007% of the speed of light.

Yep, they claim to have detected a vibration (motion) that traveled close to the speed of light and coincided with the gamma ray burst detection.  No gravity involved in any way.  Gravitational waves, are not gravity or gravity waves.  They have played a semantic trick on you.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2020, 03:23:23 AM by jack44556677 »

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2020, 03:26:46 AM »
@fisherman

Quote
The difference is that Einstein's g-field has been experimentally verified as the the curvature of spacetime

No, it most certainly has not.  I entreat you to prove me wrong and let me know when and how this was "experimentally verified".  Spacetime is so ridiculously stupid

#### stack

• 1526
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2020, 04:58:34 AM »
Quote
You should read up on what interferometers do and how they work, they don't measure motion, they measure distance.  I've used interferometers, I've even built my own.

Interferometers are not used (typically, anyhow) nor designed/invented to measure distance, why you think that is beyond me - especially with your claim that you've built one.  They are used to measure motion, which does - in fairness - correspond to an infinitesimal "distance" (distance between fringes).  Using a laser and timing its return for distance estimation is in no way an interferometer.  Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.

I'm not sure where you're getting all that from. But Interferometers certainly are all about distance (and size) measurements.

"The interferometer was invented by Albert A. Michelson in about 1880. It is an optical instrument that has been redesigned in numerous forms and has many applications in optics where precision measurements are required. Michelson originally designed the interferometer for ether-drift experiments to prove the existence of the medium, which was thought to explain the propagation of light. He also used the interferometer to define the International Standard Meter in terms of the red wavelength of cadmium light, to study the fine structure in spectral lines, to determine the degree of rigidity and elasticity of the earth, and to measure the angular diameters of the satellites of Jupiter and the diameters of several of the largest stars...
Interferometers are used as a tool for stellar astrophysics, principally for the measurement of the angular diameters of stars and for the measurement of binary star orbits."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-an-optical-interf/

Time Line for the Definition of the Meter
1892 Michelson used an interferometer that he developed to determine the length of
the International Prototype Meter in terms of the cadmium red line wavelength.
His measurements gave the meter a value of 1,553,164.13 times the wavelength
of cadmium red in air, at 760 mm of atmospheric pressure at 15 °C.

1925 The Michelson interferometer was in regular use at BIPM for measuring length.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/div683/museum-timeline.pdf

Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2020, 03:12:10 PM »
Quote
You should read up on what interferometers do and how they work, they don't measure motion, they measure distance.  I've used interferometers, I've even built my own.

Interferometers are not used (typically, anyhow) nor designed/invented to measure distance, why you think that is beyond me - especially with your claim that you've built one.  They are used to measure motion, which does - in fairness - correspond to an infinitesimal "distance" (distance between fringes).  Using a laser and timing its return for distance estimation is in no way an interferometer.  Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.

You are very confused.  What does using a laser and timing how long a pulse takes have to do with an interferometer?

Interferometers measure distance, not motion.  How can you be mixed up between distance and movement?

What you are saying is in effect, claiming a tape measure doesn't measure distance, it measures movement. That makes no sense, sure you can measure movement with a tape measure, but only by comparing multiple readings of distance over time... because DISTANCE is what it measures, just like an interferometer.

Try a little research.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2020, 05:00:13 AM »
@stack

The interferometer was not designed or invented to measure distance, at least initially - as it seems!

@JSS

Quote
What does using a laser and timing how long a pulse takes have to do with an interferometer?

Nothing. That's how you measure distances with lasers/electromagnetic waves.  You time return pulses - obviously.

Quote
Interferometers measure distance, not motion.

It is interesting that interferometers are also (later after their invention for their primary purpose) used to measure distance (as I said they could potentially do - on infinitesimal scales), though irrelevant to our discussion.  LIGO does not measure distance with interferometers.  Interferometers are not commonly used for distance.

Quote
That makes no sense,

Well, stop talking nonsense to yourself then!  Interferometers measure motion - that's their original purpose and that is by FAR their frequent usage today.  Do you really not know that? Or are you simply disingenuous?

« Last Edit: October 08, 2020, 05:03:52 AM by jack44556677 »

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #49 on: October 08, 2020, 02:12:13 PM »
It is interesting that interferometers are also (later after their invention for their primary purpose) used to measure distance (as I said they could potentially do - on infinitesimal scales), though irrelevant to our discussion.  LIGO does not measure distance with interferometers.  Interferometers are not commonly used for distance.

The LIGO detects gravitational waves by measuring the distance of the two arms. Large gravitational waves change the distances, which the interferometers can detect. We call changes in distance over time motion, which seems to be what has you hung up over the whole measuring movement vs distance. It's comparing the length of the two arms.

This whole side-discussion is indeed irrelevant.

LIGO detects gravitational waves.  Why do you think it does not?

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2020, 05:09:56 PM »
@JSS

Quote
LIGO detects gravitational waves.  Why do you think it does not?

Firstly, gravitational waves are fiction.  Secondly, interferometers measure motion.  The length of the arms of the interferometer do not change or move - great pains are taken to assure this (when you aren't using it to measure distance).  Thirdly, gravitational waves are not gravity, nor gravity waves - they have played a semantic trick on you.

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2020, 11:37:36 PM »
@JSS

Quote
LIGO detects gravitational waves.  Why do you think it does not?

Firstly, gravitational waves are fiction.

This is just a statement, it's not evidence or an explanation.

Secondly, interferometers measure motion.

We have been down this road already. Interferometers measure the interference pattern of two waves of light.  In the case of LIGO, it's two beams bouncing off a pair of mile long tunnels at 90 degree angles. They are calibrated so the interference patterns cancel out.  If the distance of one of the tunnels change, then the interference no longer cancels out and you get a signal.  This is how it detects gravitational waves. What do you think it's measuring instead?

The length of the arms of the interferometer do not change or move - great pains are taken to assure this (when you aren't using it to measure distance).

If they did not change, what is causing the interference pattern?  How come the measurements match up with predictions for what we should see for such events?

Thirdly, gravitational waves are not gravity, nor gravity waves - they have played a semantic trick on you.

Again, this is just a statement, not evidence or an explanation.

#### stack

• 1526
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2020, 12:54:41 AM »
@stack

The interferometer was not designed or invented to measure distance, at least initially - as it seems!

You are incorrect. The whole point of the interferometer was to measure minute distance, not motion. Motion calculations were a byproduct of the device's exacting distance measurement capabilities.

"The Michelson interferometer (invented by the American physicist Albert A. Michelson, 1852–1931) is a precision instrument that produces interference fringes by splitting a light beam into two parts and then recombining them after they have traveled different optical paths...

The path difference of the two beams when they recombine is 2{d}_{1}-2{d}_{2}, where {d}_{1} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{1}, and {d}_{2} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{2}. Suppose this path difference is an integer number of wavelengths m{\lambda }_{0}. Then, constructive interference occurs and a bright image of the point on the source is seen at the observer. Now the light from any other point on the source whose two beams have this same path difference also undergoes constructive interference and produces a bright image. The collection of these point images is a bright fringe corresponding to a path difference of m{\lambda }_{0} ((Figure)). When {\text{M}}_{1} is moved a distance \text{Δ}d={\lambda }_{0}\text{/}2, this path difference changes by {\lambda }_{0}, and each fringe moves to the position previously occupied by an adjacent fringe. Consequently, by counting the number of fringes m passing a given point as {\text{M}}_{1} is moved, an observer can measure minute displacements that are accurate to a fraction of a wavelength, as shown by the relation.
"
https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/the-michelson-interferometer/
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2020, 03:59:13 AM »
@JSS

Quote
If the distance of one of the tunnels change, then the interference no longer cancels out and you get a signal.  This is how it detects gravitational waves. What do you think it's measuring instead?

That is true, however there is nothing adjusting the length of the arms.  The arms stay fixed, and insulated from noise/seismic vibration.  You cannot understand the interferometer or what it does in the currently taught framework of physics.  Perhaps that is why they had you build one for measuring distance - that IS explainable in the current framework.  The era of aether-mcarthyism must come to an end.  It measures motion; Why will undoubtedly take some time and repetition to convey to you - but I'm game if you are!  In the specific case of LIGO, it's irreproducible and hardly worth evaluating until that changes (science MUST be repeatable and repeated rigorously)

Quote
If they did not change, what is causing the interference pattern

The speed of the light in each arm.  The amount of time that the light takes to travel in each identical arm is different.  Excellent question.

Quote
Again, this is just a statement, not evidence or an explanation.

It's an important point that you have missed, and were intended to.  Cutting edge science is never headline news - ever.  LIGO is a fraud, wether they detected something or not.  It was presented as if "gravity" were finally found - it hasn't of course, because gravity is fiction.  Gravitational waves are not gravity or gravity waves.  They played a semantic trick on the gullible public through mass media.  I doubt the LIGO "researchers" have anything at all to do with it - they are far too poor and have no "pull" to achieve such a result.

@stack

Quote
You are incorrect. The whole point of the interferometer was to measure minute distance, not motion

The interferometer was first designed and invented for a purpose.  Do you know what that purpose was? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't measuring distance...  If you do have any evidence to support your assertion, I'd be very interested!
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 01:26:17 AM by jack44556677 »

#### stack

• 1526
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2020, 04:48:46 AM »
@stack

Quote
You are incorrect. The whole point of the interferometer was to measure minute distance, not motion

The interferometer was first designed and invented for a purpose.  Do you know what that purpose was? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't measuring distance...  If you do have any evidence to support your assertion, I'd be very interested!

The experiment was to determine whether the aether was in motion or stationary.

The instrument devised (interferometer) for the experiment was designed to measure very hyper-exacting distance to derive motion calculations/results. How is that lost on you? How does one measure motion over time? Think about it.

And I already gave you the evidence:

The path difference of the two beams when they recombine is 2{d}_{1}-2{d}_{2}, where {d}_{1} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{1}, and {d}_{2} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{2}. Suppose this path difference is an integer number of wavelengths m{\lambda }_{0}. Then, constructive interference occurs and a bright image of the point on the source is seen at the observer. Now the light from any other point on the source whose two beams have this same path difference also undergoes constructive interference and produces a bright image. The collection of these point images is a bright fringe corresponding to a path difference of m{\lambda }_{0} ((Figure)). When {\text{M}}_{1} is moved a distance \text{Δ}d={\lambda }_{0}\text{/}2, this path difference changes by {\lambda }_{0}, and each fringe moves to the position previously occupied by an adjacent fringe. Consequently, by counting the number of fringes m passing a given point as {\text{M}}_{1} is moved, an observer can measure minute displacements that are accurate to a fraction of a wavelength, as shown by the relation."
https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/the-michelson-interferometer/
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2020, 08:27:30 PM »
@stack

Quote
The instrument devised (interferometer) for the experiment was designed to measure very hyper-exacting distance

Wrong.  Also, please provide some support for your claim that the interferometer was first made to measure distance.  I'm waiting for it...  If your reading comprehension is poor enough that you think that detail was included in the entry level article you posted - you have big problems to address before you can make any further progress learning from reading.

The michelson morely observation is not an experiment.  Words have meanings.

#### stack

• 1526
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2020, 09:39:16 PM »
@stack

Quote
The instrument devised (interferometer) for the experiment was designed to measure very hyper-exacting distance

Wrong.  Also, please provide some support for your claim that the interferometer was first made to measure distance.  I'm waiting for it...  If your reading comprehension is poor enough that you think that detail was included in the entry level article you posted - you have big problems to address before you can make any further progress learning from reading.

Interesting. You simply say, "Wrong," without providing any evidence other than you just saying, "Wrong." How is this not the detail required: "The path difference of the two beams when they recombine is 2{d}_{1}-2{d}_{2}, where {d}_{1} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{1}, and {d}_{2} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{2}.

As well we have:

A straightforward application for the Michelson interferometer is direct measurement of the wavelength of monochromatic light. By smooth changing of the distance d1(or d2) and counting the interference maxima, which comes as cosine function of the distance, eq. (2.13), one can determine the wave number as number of maxima per unit length,13 and the wavelength as inverse of the wave number.

A short list of the Michelson interferometer applications in the optical spectroscopy application includes:
- wavelength determination;
- measurements of the light coherence length (the interference pattern can be observed only for coherent beams I1 and I2);
- optics diagnostics (an optical component, e. g. a lens, can be inserted between mirrors M1 and M2 and any distortions of the wavefront will be seen in distortions of the interference pattern on the interferometer output);
- fine displacement measurements;
- optical correlators (ultra-short pulse width measurements, will be considered in Chapter 4.5.2);
- Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy;

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/michelson-interferometers

The michelson morely observation is not an experiment.  Words have meanings.

Yes, words do have meaning. And I have no idea what you are getting at. The Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX for short) is referred to in physics as the "The Michelson-Morley Experiment". Do you take issue with what it is called? If so, please explain.

I think the bigger problem you may have is that is seems you are one of the types of people who offers no evidence to support your claims and expects others to solely rely upon your wisdom which has yet to be revealed in any meaningful way. What sort of evidence do you have that refutes the evidence I have offered. If you could provide something then maybe we could have a conversation about reading comprehension. All we have so far from you is "Wrong."
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #57 on: October 12, 2020, 01:48:00 AM »
@stack

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I may have been in a foul mood when I was a little harsh with the "reading comprehension bit".  My apologies.

Quote
Interesting. You simply say, "Wrong,

I do it to save time.  It is common knowledge, after all - and should hardly be surprising to you.  The "mmx" (j*sus tap dancing chr*st) was not performed to measure distance.  This is historical fact, and I am still waiting on you to provide support for your revisionist claim - assuming you have one.  I've read your entry level article - it does not serve to rewrite history in the manner you require.  If you don't have any support for your claim in historical/scientific text, then why are you so certain about it?

I find it perfectly conceivable that your claim could have some merit, though you have provided no evidence for it so far.  It is widely taught and known that the "mmx" measures velocity (or acceleration, depending on if you were taught correctly or not), not distance.  Great pains were taken to eliminate the noise caused by the "distance" the interferometer would change shape due to vibration.  It is still used today for that same purpose and that is its most common use.

Quote
And I have no idea what you are getting at.

That's fair - i did not explain.  An experiment is not merely an observation.  You must have at least one IV and DV and it must validate or invalidate the hypothesis by establishing a causal link between the two - it is not optional.  The michaelson morely "experiment" is merely an observation - not an experiment.  It may seem like a semantic quibble, but it is far more important than that.

Quote
What sort of evidence do you have that refutes the evidence I have offered

Roughly all of it.  You are the only one who seems to have been taught the new history that michaelson morely invented the interferometer to measure distance first, and THEN used it to determine motion through space in the "mmx" (shudder...).  I find this view interesting, and potentially plausible - but it has no historical support.  Unless you have some?

#### stack

• 1526
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #58 on: October 12, 2020, 03:19:07 AM »
@stack

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I may have been in a foul mood when I was a little harsh with the "reading comprehension bit".  My apologies.

Quote
Interesting. You simply say, "Wrong,

I do it to save time.

You still have provided no evidence to the contrary, entry-level or otherwise. So in the interest of time, you are wrong.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### jack44556677

• 211
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2020, 03:48:44 AM »
@stack

It isn't worth my time.  Every source tells the same history as far as I am aware.

If you have any support for your view, I am intereted in it - however you are not obligated to share (it's just the right/best thing to do - for you and all of humanity)
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 04:51:47 AM by jack44556677 »