Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is there a "gravitational constant"?

Expand Messages
  • c.h.thompson
    Yesterday I was told the following. Could this paper (by Mikhail Gershteyn et al) change our world view? ****** An MIT physicist claims to have experimentally
    Message 1 of 13 , May 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Yesterday I was told the following. Could this paper (by Mikhail Gershteyn
      et al) change our world view?

      ******
      An MIT physicist claims to have experimentally demonstrated that the force
      of gravitation between two test bodies varies with their orientation in
      space -- an admittedly amazing claim. They say Newton's constant G changes
      with the orientation by at least 0.054 percent. The paper, "Experimental
      Evidence That the Gravitational Constant Varies with Orientation," has been
      accepted in the journal, Gravitation and Cosmology, for publication in June.
      A draft of this paper may be accessed here:
      www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058.
      ******

      The paper is short and to the point, with several very convincing graphs.
      They use a torsion balance in a vacuum chamber, taking measurements at
      almost constant intervals throughout the day. The results show a strong
      variation with sidereal time. The strength of the effect varies with other
      controllable factors.

      The authors think their results support the Attractive Universe Theory,
      http://www.AttractiveUniverse.com , in which the gravitational constant is
      assumed to be affected by the position of close massive bodies. My
      immediate thought, though, was that the observations are probably compatible
      with many models that depend on Le Sage-type ideas, with gravity being due
      to "pressure" from the rest of the universe, either due to particle fluxes
      or to aether waves.

      More experimentation is needed! How do their results tie in with the known
      red and blue shifts of the cosmic background radiation? How do they tie in
      with Dayton Miller's aether drift results (see
      http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm )? It is unlikely that
      they were seeing a direct aether wind effect, as this would have been
      screened out in the vacuum chamber, but motion relative to the fixed stars
      or the CBR would be associated with increased "pressure" of some kind.

      Caroline

      --
      c.h.thompson@...
      http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
    • adrian
      There s several possible readings, dependent on the theory elected. A: As gravity weight, conventional, one would expect a solar system with moving planets to
      Message 2 of 13 , May 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        There's several possible readings, dependent on the theory elected.

        A: As gravity weight, conventional, one would expect a solar system with
        moving planets to have uneven distributions of mass so by that direction
        seems indicated and that direction to vary with planetary locations known,
        Easy to test I'd say.

        B: With gravity the product of an ion wind or some aetheric energy effect
        much the same would hold as for A, so this makes it tricky to decide which
        is which. One can even extend this to work by some vaunted "centre" of our
        island universe where we are a backwater and the same unequal disttribition
        of mass and/or em would obtain.

        The curiosity is not that it is gravity but that this is the second item. A
        while back it was light speed that varies. It can all be easily explained by
        us now having more sensitive instruments.
        It links in my mind with the mirror effect. How come we get left right
        inversion but not top bottom? Another one is that magnetism has to be
        directionally varied in strength. At some point it will zero but off centre
        it won't.

        Another one again is Prof Picardi's solution test. He took a fixed amount of
        water and salts and tested across earth and time to find that it it varies
        by planetary positions. In effect I find the entire notion that energy is
        omni or any directional to be vectorised into a force a somewhat silly
        generalisation.

        Slingshot space trips have to be carefully calculated for the right spot and
        time. Pilot whatever his name has the theory that nuclear bombs can only be
        exploded at the right time and place and predicted some test dates.

        So, altogether our more refined instrumentation is beginning to show things
        up and one simply does not know untill all the "constants" have been tested
        and which found directional that any adequate theorising can be done.
        Poisonally I reckon there ain't no such thing as constants, that is, if it
        is a dynamic system. And although the pretty 4D maths seems to work out
        well I still reckon the universe is dynamic and cycle changing and we ain't
        got not a clue of woollyheaded notions as to what kind of cycles there are.

        All those multi parameters or dimensionals seem to me to be the effect of
        making particles and objects carry the burden of their effects along with
        them, for which there is not a skerrick of proof but that it keeps the maths
        tidy. The alternative here is a hierarchy of subtler and grosser effects to
        be found. I don't think 0.054 % is much to get excited about as an energy
        source but it do show absolute constants are not kosher.

        Jeepers, did I make any sense?

        Adrian.
      • Bill Hamilton
        ... Yes, but G is supposedly a constant independent of the masses involved, but then there has been controversy about the value of G. I found this: Recently
        Message 3 of 13 , May 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >From: "adrian" <afme@...>
          >Reply-To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
          >To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Is there a "gravitational
          >constant"?
          >Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 22:04:58 +1200
          >
          >There's several possible readings, dependent on the theory elected.
          >
          >A: As gravity weight, conventional, one would expect a solar system with
          >moving planets to have uneven distributions of mass so by that direction
          >seems indicated and that direction to vary with planetary locations known,
          >Easy to test I'd say.

          Yes, but G is supposedly a constant independent of the masses
          involved, but then there has been controversy about the value
          of G.

          I found this:

          Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements
          from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new
          values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of
          Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger
          than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany
          led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald
          and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand
          measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space
          and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results
          suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally
          thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more
          reliable measurement of G.

          One of the greatest difficulties in any G measurement is determining with
          sufficient accuracy the dimensions and density distribution of the torsion
          pendulum body (the dumbbell). A second limitation is in knowing the
          properties of the suspension fiber with sufficient accuracy. The Japanese
          physicist Kazuaki Kuroda recently pointed out that internal friction in the
          torsion fiber, which had previously been neglected, may have caused some of
          the problems in the existing measurements.

          Jens Gundlach, Eric Adelberger, and Blayne Heckel from the University of
          Washington E�t-Wash research group have pioneered a method that elegantly
          sidesteps these uncertainties. They noted that if the usual dumbbell is
          replaced by a thin, flat plate hung by its edge, neither the pendulum's
          dimensions nor its density distribution have to be known with very high
          precision. In principle, one can obtain G by measuring the angular
          acceleration of a flat pendulum without even knowing its mass or dimensions.
          This simple fact had not been recognized in 200 years of gravitational
          experiments! The Seattle researchers eliminate the problems with the torsion
          fiber by placing the torsion balance on a turntable that continuously
          rotates between a set of attracting bodies. The turntable is controlled by a
          feedback loop that speeds it up or slows it down so that the suspension
          fiber never has to twist; G can then be accurately inferred from the
          rotation rate of the turntable. This new method uses eight, rather than two,
          attracting bodies and these are strategically placed on a second turntable
          that rotates in the opposite sense from the first turntable. This novel
          technique is discussed in the July 15 issue of Physical Review D.

          At the University of California at Irvine, Riley Newman and graduate student
          Michael Bantel are refining the frequency shift method. They plan to operate
          their balance at a temperature only 4 degrees above absolute zero to reduce
          the internal friction in the suspension fiber and to make its properties
          more constant. Their apparatus will also use a flat pendulum.

          The fact that this famous fundamental constant is still so uncertain
          testifies to the difficulty of gravitational measurements. The recent flurry
          of new ideas for measuring G would surely have pleased Isaac Newton (quite a
          clever experimenter himself) who started this whole enterprise over 300
          years ago.

          Bill
          >
          >B: With gravity the product of an ion wind or some aetheric energy effect
          >much the same would hold as for A, so this makes it tricky to decide which
          >is which. One can even extend this to work by some vaunted "centre" of our
          >island universe where we are a backwater and the same unequal disttribition
          >of mass and/or em would obtain.
          >
          >The curiosity is not that it is gravity but that this is the second item. A
          >while back it was light speed that varies. It can all be easily explained
          >by
          >us now having more sensitive instruments.
          >It links in my mind with the mirror effect. How come we get left right
          >inversion but not top bottom? Another one is that magnetism has to be
          >directionally varied in strength. At some point it will zero but off centre
          >it won't.
          >
          >Another one again is Prof Picardi's solution test. He took a fixed amount
          >of
          >water and salts and tested across earth and time to find that it it varies
          >by planetary positions. In effect I find the entire notion that energy is
          >omni or any directional to be vectorised into a force a somewhat silly
          >generalisation.
          >
          >Slingshot space trips have to be carefully calculated for the right spot
          >and
          >time. Pilot whatever his name has the theory that nuclear bombs can only be
          >exploded at the right time and place and predicted some test dates.
          >
          >So, altogether our more refined instrumentation is beginning to show things
          >up and one simply does not know untill all the "constants" have been tested
          >and which found directional that any adequate theorising can be done.
          >Poisonally I reckon there ain't no such thing as constants, that is, if it
          >is a dynamic system. And although the pretty 4D maths seems to work out
          >well I still reckon the universe is dynamic and cycle changing and we ain't
          >got not a clue of woollyheaded notions as to what kind of cycles there are.
          >
          >All those multi parameters or dimensionals seem to me to be the effect of
          >making particles and objects carry the burden of their effects along with
          >them, for which there is not a skerrick of proof but that it keeps the
          >maths
          >tidy. The alternative here is a hierarchy of subtler and grosser effects to
          >be found. I don't think 0.054 % is much to get excited about as an energy
          >source but it do show absolute constants are not kosher.
          >
          >Jeepers, did I make any sense?
          >
          >Adrian.
          >
          >
          >
          >To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
          >
          >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          >forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >




          Bill Hamilton
          Executive Director
          Skywatch International, Inc.
          websites:
          http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher22
          http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher12
          http://home.earthlink.net/~xplorerx
          http://home.earthlink.net/~xplorerx2
          http://home.earthlink.net/~xplorerx3



          _________________________________________________________________
          Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
        • adrian
          Hi Bill, Did not realise it was that tricky, ta. The difference in result would indicate that the means used affect the result, which, to my mind, if it is a
          Message 4 of 13 , May 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Bill,

            Did not realise it was that tricky, ta. The difference in result would
            indicate that the means used affect the result, which, to my mind, if it is
            a constant is not that likely to happen. I'd fancy a space test <G> It
            also all depends under what kind of query or hypothesis one tests and that
            is recent.

            Adrian.
          • c.h.thompson
            Hi Adrian ... Yes, for once. You could try it more often. Caroline
            Message 5 of 13 , May 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Adrian

              > Jeepers, did I make any sense?

              Yes, for once. You could try it more often.

              Caroline
            • c.h.thompson
              Hi Bill ... The point of the Gershteyn paper (physics/0202058) as I see it is that they almost succeed in identifying a reason why G should vary. They are not
              Message 6 of 13 , May 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Bill

                > Yes, but G is supposedly a constant independent of the masses
                > involved, but then there has been controversy about the value
                > of G.

                The point of the Gershteyn paper (physics/0202058) as I see it is that they
                almost succeed in identifying a reason why G should vary. They are not
                trying to estimate G but to look for patterns in its variations, and they
                seem to have found one. They took readings about every hour for 7 months,
                and say the precision in the estimate of the peak of the periodogram is +-
                0.06 hr. This is not, I suppose, quite good enough to distinguish between a
                sidereal day of 23.93 hr and a solar one. Tom Van Flandern suggested that
                what they were seeing could be caused by "uncontrolled-for variations in the
                environment (mobile masses coming and going on a pseudo-daily cycle)". As I
                said, more experimentation is needed! If this test were to be repeated at
                different locations, different seasons, perhaps also using different
                materials for the weights, it has the potential to move us at least one step
                forwards.

                > I found this:
                >
                > Recently the value of G has been called into question by new
                > measurements from respected research teams in Germany,
                > New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly.

                As the abstract of the paper says, in 1998 the CODATA estimate of
                uncertainty in G was revised from 0.013% to 0.15%!

                Cheers
                Caroline

                c.h.thompson@...
                http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
              • adrian
                Geeh Caroline, You re JUST the person I d want approval from ,haha. You seem unable to grasp heavy irony. You re so deliciously patronising. Adrian. ... From:
                Message 7 of 13 , May 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Geeh Caroline, You're JUST the person I'd want approval from ,haha. You
                  seem unable to grasp heavy irony. You're so deliciously patronising.

                  Adrian.


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "c.h.thompson" <c.h.thompson@...>
                  To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 9:48 AM
                  Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Is there a "gravitational
                  constant"?


                  > Hi Adrian
                  >
                  > > Jeepers, did I make any sense?
                  >
                  > Yes, for once. You could try it more often.
                  >
                  > Caroline
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
                  >
                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • c.h.thompson
                  Hi ... There could easily be one, masked by noise. ... The angle of oscillation was tiny, only 1.6 to 3.1 degrees, so I doubt if this could have mattered. ...
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi

                    > > The point of the Gershteyn paper (physics/0202058) as I
                    > > see it is that they almost succeed in identifying a reason why
                    > > G should vary. They are not trying to estimate G but to
                    > > look for patterns in its variations, and they
                    > > seem to have found one.
                    >
                    > Maybe not. Their data covers a 60 hour period, but has a peak
                    > only at 24 hours. Why is there not one at 48 hours?

                    There could easily be one, masked by noise.

                    > Even so, the torsion fiber, as it twists will get shorter and the
                    > downward force should vary over 24 hours since, at noon the sun
                    > is on one side of the apparatus & the Earth on the other. Then,
                    > at mid-night both masses are beneath it. I.e., stuff weighs more
                    > at midnight than at noon. Consequently, the fiber should un-wind
                    > faster at midnight than at noon.

                    The angle of oscillation was tiny, only 1.6 to 3.1 degrees, so I doubt if
                    this could have mattered.

                    > But, I'd still expect to see a peak at 24, 48, 72 hours etc.
                    > And I'd expect to see a smoother
                    > rise, rather than the spike you see in Gershteyn's paper.

                    I haven't any experience with this kind of analysis, but don't immediately
                    see why it should not be a sharp peak. However, I wrote to Mikhail
                    Gershteyn and he promised a more comprehensive paper later. He'll keep me
                    informed.

                    Cheers
                    Caroline
                  • c.h.thompson
                    ... I don t understand. All depends what you mean by noise (I simply meant other uncontrolled factors) and how much there was. ... Now hang on a minute! They
                    Message 9 of 13 , May 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > There could easily be one, masked by noise.
                      >
                      > Look at the _number_ of data points at 24 hours &
                      > those surrounding it. If noise were present, I wouldn't
                      > expect to see the 24 hour peak either.

                      I don't understand. All depends what you mean by noise (I simply meant
                      other uncontrolled factors) and how much there was.

                      > > > Even so, the torsion fiber, as it twists will get shorter
                      > > > and the downward force should vary over 24 hours since,
                      > > > at noon the sun is on one side of the apparatus & the
                      > > > Earth on the other. Then, at mid-night both masses
                      > > > are beneath it. I.e., stuff weighs more at midnight than
                      > > > at noon. Consequently, the fiber should un-wind
                      > > > faster at midnight than at noon.
                      > >
                      > > The angle of oscillation was tiny, only 1.6 to 3.1 degrees,
                      > > so I doubt if this could have mattered.
                      >
                      > Your probably right, there's only about a .32% difference in the
                      > weight of objects at noon and midnight, but it still should have been
                      > mentioned. This is a farily large number when you're measuring out
                      > to 5 decimal places. Part of the restoring force is due to gravity,
                      > i.e., the torsion fiber does act like a pendulum & should have a
                      > shorter period at midnight than noon. Unfortunately, Gershteyn
                      > doesn't give the time of day he measured T at (pretty big ommision
                      > I'd say).

                      Now hang on a minute! They made measurements approximately EVERY hour,
                      continuously (almost) for 7 months. I agree that we need to know the phase
                      of his main effect. Perhaps he will be telling us this in his full paper.
                      I've written asking for more details, and will send copy of this message to
                      him.

                      > The guys with the turntable have avioded the torsion fiber problem
                      > entirely. If you want to go beyond the current 5 or 6 decimal places
                      > for G, you've get to get rid of everything that's not G related.
                      > Even so, they'll still have to account for friction at noon &
                      > midnight.

                      But Gershteyn et al are not trying to estimate G but to understand causes of
                      variation. If they can show that their large periodic effect not only
                      varies with the position of the test weight but with other factors such as
                      orientation and season, and if the period can be shown to be significantly
                      less than 24 hours (perhaps varying with season) then surely they will have
                      proved something? However, perhaps the turntable alternative should be
                      looked at.

                      > When Millikan (sp?) was measuring the electron's charge he even
                      > removed the bouancy effect of oil in air!.

                      [Hmm ... there are rumours that anyone doing this experiment makes so many
                      "corrections" that they can get almost any answer they want ...]

                      Caroline

                      c.h.thompson@...
                      http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                    • Robert Neil Boyd
                      This makes perfect sense. It couples with the fact that space has chirality, also with the fact that light propagates faster when it is polarized left as
                      Message 10 of 13 , May 9, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        This makes perfect sense. It couples with the fact that space has chirality,
                        also with the fact that light propagates faster when it is polarized left as opposed
                        to right hand circular, and with the recent astrophysical discovery that the
                        universe has a polarized axis. These are all properties of the physical vacuum.
                        In addition, there are indications that gravitation can change with time, as per
                        the original data from the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

                        Neil

                        "c.h.thompson" wrote:

                        > Yesterday I was told the following. Could this paper (by Mikhail Gershteyn
                        > et al) change our world view?
                        >
                        > ******
                        > An MIT physicist claims to have experimentally demonstrated that the force
                        > of gravitation between two test bodies varies with their orientation in
                        > space -- an admittedly amazing claim. They say Newton's constant G changes
                        > with the orientation by at least 0.054 percent. The paper, "Experimental
                        > Evidence That the Gravitational Constant Varies with Orientation," has been
                        > accepted in the journal, Gravitation and Cosmology, for publication in June.
                        > A draft of this paper may be accessed here:
                        > www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058.
                        > ******
                        >
                        > The paper is short and to the point, with several very convincing graphs.
                        > They use a torsion balance in a vacuum chamber, taking measurements at
                        > almost constant intervals throughout the day. The results show a strong
                        > variation with sidereal time. The strength of the effect varies with other
                        > controllable factors.
                        >
                        > The authors think their results support the Attractive Universe Theory,
                        > http://www.AttractiveUniverse.com , in which the gravitational constant is
                        > assumed to be affected by the position of close massive bodies. My
                        > immediate thought, though, was that the observations are probably compatible
                        > with many models that depend on Le Sage-type ideas, with gravity being due
                        > to "pressure" from the rest of the universe, either due to particle fluxes
                        > or to aether waves.
                        >
                        > More experimentation is needed! How do their results tie in with the known
                        > red and blue shifts of the cosmic background radiation? How do they tie in
                        > with Dayton Miller's aether drift results (see
                        > http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm )? It is unlikely that
                        > they were seeing a direct aether wind effect, as this would have been
                        > screened out in the vacuum chamber, but motion relative to the fixed stars
                        > or the CBR would be associated with increased "pressure" of some kind.
                        >
                        > Caroline
                        >
                        > --
                        > c.h.thompson@...
                        > http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                        >
                        >
                        > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
                        >
                        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • paul hoiland
                        If you take a look at the data on the Voyager series there is a marked slow down of the craft back towards the sun. Now given a PV model this is to be
                        Message 11 of 13 , May 9, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          If you take a look at the data on the Voyager series
                          there is a marked slow down of the craft back towards
                          the sun. Now given a PV model this is to be expected.
                          The solar radiation in that direct plane should alter
                          the ZPF structure in that line. Since the planets
                          orbit the sun, they do not experience this effect.
                          However, something alinged to that plane will detect a
                          local difference as compared to a not aligned
                          possition. It simply can be translated as a polorized
                          effect due to dielectric differences in that plane,
                          versus a non-aligned plane. To be exact, if you look
                          at the actual amount of slowdown the dielectric value
                          must vary from 1 to 1.00000008 between planes. So the
                          fact that they have detected differences is no
                          surprize at all.

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
                          http://shopping.yahoo.com
                        • c.h.thompson
                          Hi Neil ... chirality, ... as opposed ... What is the evidence for this? I know that the speeds of propagation in certain crystals and other optically active
                          Message 12 of 13 , May 10, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Neil

                            > This makes perfect sense. It couples with the fact that space has
                            chirality,
                            > also with the fact that light propagates faster when it is polarized left
                            as opposed
                            > to right hand circular,

                            What is the evidence for this? I know that the speeds of propagation in
                            certain crystals and other optically active substances will be different but
                            the only case of a definite imbalance that I know of is for the molecules
                            involved in living organisms. What is the evidence for light crossing
                            "space"?

                            > and with the recent astrophysical discovery that the
                            > universe has a polarized axis.

                            Again, what was the actual evidence? And how can they know that they are
                            talking of a "universe" and not just a local galaxy effect, or even a solar
                            system one?

                            > These are all properties of the physical vacuum.

                            Maybe, though it does not fit my picture ...

                            > In addition, there are indications that gravitation can change with
                            > time, as per the original data from the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

                            Could you explain? On what scale would the changes have been?

                            One tentative explanation I have come up with for Gershteyn's results is
                            that in the normal course of events two very small forces balance out: an
                            aether wind push and a blue shift pressure effect due to our motion relative
                            to the fixed stars. (This is on the hypothesis that a large aether wind is
                            actually driving us around the sun, so the one at the surface is just a
                            small one due to us lagging behind a little.) If you put some apparatus in
                            a vacuum chamber you cut out the aether wind effect but leave the blue shift
                            one!

                            I know it's a little far-fetched but would like to know more details of the
                            experiment, and see it repeated alongside a repeat of Dayton Miller's aether
                            drift experiments, at various seasons and locations.
                            Caroline

                            c.h.thompson@...
                            http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                          • Robert Neil Boyd
                            See: http://www.cc.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/aniso.html Also see: http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pd2/pd2fre52.htm and
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 10, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              See: http://www.cc.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/aniso.html
                              Also see: http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pd2/pd2fre52.htm
                              and http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre69.htm

                              Also see:
                              http://www22.pair.com/csdc/ed3/ed3fre27.htm
                              http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre80.htm
                              http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre75.htm

                              Also see: http://www.sinor.ru/~che/Vdyatlov1.htm
                              http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049

                              Neil


                              "c.h.thompson" wrote:

                              > Hi Neil
                              >
                              > > This makes perfect sense. It couples with the fact that space has
                              > chirality,
                              > > also with the fact that light propagates faster when it is polarized left
                              > as opposed
                              > > to right hand circular,
                              >
                              > What is the evidence for this? I know that the speeds of propagation in
                              > certain crystals and other optically active substances will be different but
                              > the only case of a definite imbalance that I know of is for the molecules
                              > involved in living organisms. What is the evidence for light crossing
                              > "space"?
                              >
                              > > and with the recent astrophysical discovery that the
                              > > universe has a polarized axis.
                              >
                              > Again, what was the actual evidence? And how can they know that they are
                              > talking of a "universe" and not just a local galaxy effect, or even a solar
                              > system one?
                              >
                              > > These are all properties of the physical vacuum.
                              >
                              > Maybe, though it does not fit my picture ...
                              >
                              > > In addition, there are indications that gravitation can change with
                              > > time, as per the original data from the Michaelson-Morley experiment.
                              >
                              > Could you explain? On what scale would the changes have been?
                              >
                              > One tentative explanation I have come up with for Gershteyn's results is
                              > that in the normal course of events two very small forces balance out: an
                              > aether wind push and a blue shift pressure effect due to our motion relative
                              > to the fixed stars. (This is on the hypothesis that a large aether wind is
                              > actually driving us around the sun, so the one at the surface is just a
                              > small one due to us lagging behind a little.) If you put some apparatus in
                              > a vacuum chamber you cut out the aether wind effect but leave the blue shift
                              > one!
                              >
                              > I know it's a little far-fetched but would like to know more details of the
                              > experiment, and see it repeated alongside a repeat of Dayton Miller's aether
                              > drift experiments, at various seasons and locations.
                              > Caroline
                              >
                              > c.h.thompson@...
                              > http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                              >
                              >
                              > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
                              >
                              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.