Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anomalous Observation

  1. Nov 27, 2003 #1
    Hi Everyone. I'm new here. I was referred by Tesla.

    During my quest for a theory of everything I came across an interesting observation which I believe is a big clue.

    The Michelson Morley experiment was an interesting read. It uses the interference patterns generated by two separated lightbeams to indicate relative motion when the lightbeams are recombined. The thing I took note of, is that this experiment does show interference in the lightbeams when the entire apparatus is rotated. The experiment was also performed to measure the earth's rotation in space. The results reported no rotation. This tends to suggest there is a spatial reference frame that rotates with the earth.

    The only thing I don't like is the fact that a gyrocompass does suggest that the earth rotates in another reference frame that apparently does not rotate with the earth. Whether or not this other reference frame rotates with respect to the stars still remains to be shown.

    Two distinct reference frames in place about the earth. Now I have to ask myself the question: Are we looking at two different types of space?

    And that one question can generate a lot more. For instance: Are the dimensions of length the same in both types of space? Could time be reversed in one of the spaces? Are all four dimensions present in both spaces? Can pseudo dimensions be generated from the two spaces interacting?

    I do think this is the doorway as to where the other dimensions reside. Two different types of space seems like a reasonable assumption to me in light of existing observations.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums Mr Einstein!

    You say that 'a gyrocompass does suggest that the earth rotates in another reference frame that apparently does not rotate with the earth. Whether or not this other reference frame rotates with respect to the stars still remains to be shown.'

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean; could you elaborate please?
  4. Dec 5, 2003 #3

    A gyrocompass will align its poles with the poles of the earth due to the earth's rotation. It takes a curved path in order for the gyrocompass to do this. This does suggest the earth is rotating relative to some other reference frame. I think it would be an unjustifiable assumption to arbitrarily pick that reference frame. Experimental analysis would determine if this other reference frame has any rotation rate relative to the stars.

    Obviously the reference frame that rotates with the earth as the Michelson Morley experiment suggests, would more than likely be a local reference frame created by some process that has yet to be understood.

    The fact that there are two verifiable physical preferred reference frames in place about the earth does suggest our comprehension of the phenomona is lacking.

    Preferred reference frames that appear to be independant of one another. Two kinds of reference frames independant of one another does seem to me to be two kinds of space.
  5. Dec 5, 2003 #4
    In my idea that I have tried to explain but no one seems to understand yet, I say Neutrons affect the space around them. When many neutrons are part of a very large rotating system like the earth, they would drag local space around with them.

    This is not the wild idea of a dreamer who likes brain teasers and wild flights of fantasy, but I have pieced together a set of ideas for 19 years that start with the idea that space is made of real and actual points, not just points that are mathematical concepts.

    Swirl water, and the local area swirls around, but the water a certain distance away doesn't swirl. I say space is made of points that are connected to each other like a liquid or gas is connected. Waves travel through liquids and gases, and waves travel through space.

    When one photon at a time is sent through the double slit experiment, each photon excites the space around it, creating waves that go through both slits. And then the individual photons arrange themselves according to those waves. We currently believe that space is nothing, but we are willing to say that nothingness can have shape, so we get contradictions and anomalies. If space is made of something, then objects have to swim through a space that offers some resistance, which totally changes the way objects maintain their momentum.

    How can a photon travel for trillions and trillions of miles or billions of years and maintain a precise speed if it is really just free falling through nothingness? We know space isn't empty, it contains other photons and particles. Why don't photons brush against things and slow down? If momentum is just momentum, free falling through space as it appears to be, things would slow photons down and they would never regain their speed. But if photons and electrons are being powered through a kind of space soup, and if they are being pulled through space by a force, when they lose speed they immediately regain it, and maintain a precise speed.

    So in this soup, when the earth is spinning around; it will naturally drag space with it, making space appear to rotate with the earth.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2003
  6. Dec 5, 2003 #5

    The pure concept of momentum, and the idea of consistent movement through space (which we call momentum) are really two different things. A gyro demonstates pure momentum, so it would not agree with how light beams travel though the space soup. Space actually mimicks real momentum.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?