Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment Date: Saturday, September 12, 2009 @ 16:14:06 GMTTopic: Science From TheRanchConsortium@yahoogroups: Hello Group, I usually don't write to groups, but am a mere reader of interesting ideas.....Just for inspiration for my work as a "normal" physicist. Regarding the lasted discussions I would like to contribute an experiment that gives potential food for thought for you all. Comments are welcomed. Best regards from Germany, Carl R. Jachulke Experiment conducted by von Martin Grusenick:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E&feature=relatedComments:Bob Brown writes: I have said this in personal conversation with Bill, but I will repeat it here for the benefit of all the other readers.  The traditional ommission of torque from the treatment of general relativity is usually excused on the grounds that its effects are so small as to usually be beyond the experimental error.  Unfortunately, this leads many to always omit this term.  This seems reasonable, since it greatly complicates the mathematics, and contributes such a small effect to the final result as to really be just an untidy mathematical nuissance.But doing so it to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak!Without torque, all the traditional conservative fields are truly conservative -- meaning they have a path independent curve integral.  But when you introduce torque, the vector addition becomes path independent, and it may literally take or consume different amounts of energy to go from point a to point b depending upon the route that one takes.  Torque causes all the conservative fields to become non-conservative.First off, this breaks most of traditional physics, so the traditionalists reject this approach.  Second, the mathematics is extremely more complicated, which makes analytical results harder to obtain.But thirdly, it opens the door to extracting free energy because if you take a path that has a net positive difference from the path taken by your surrounding environment, then you have extracted energy from the vacuum.I like to make the analogy that this is like sailing a sailboat, in that the wind blows in one direction, and the keel forces the boat in another direction, resulting in the extraction of free energy.  The amount extracted is so small compared to what is available that you cannot notice that the sailboat had any effect upon the weather.  It did, of course, but it was negligable.  We likewise could very well extract free energy by exploiting these torsion/torque effects.Bob Brown-------------------------------Bill Alek writes: Hello Martin and Carl,Given this fascinating experiment and some thought about more experimentation, I suggest trying the first "rotating" experiment with one of the axes extended vertically? I "bet" a preverbal "dollar to a donut", though a donut is worth more than a dollar these days and my fiancée Aurora won't let me eat donuts, that we'll see a moving interference pattern upon rotation. This, I think, is the REAL breakthrough! The second experiment with gravity (i.e., torque field) can be explained by the Pound-Rebka-Snyder Experiment.As demonstrated in the first experiment, there is no "torque" in the horizontal dimension or axes, however, if one of the axes were set vertical, I think we would see a moving interference pattern upon rotation. In other words, torque is vectored vertically, which is rather extraordinary. This would vindicate Podkletnov's spinning superconductor experiment and provide a means of measuring the torque field.Bill----------------