[geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>, "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:56:12 +1000
In the response by Robert Sungenis,
Robert Bennett said : "Aether moving at speed v relative to earth (the ARF) can
only be detected by light being absorbed and emitted by atoms free to move with
the aether. Without matter present, the moving aether can’t be observed.
Consider: the speed of an airstream (wind) can’t be measured unless something
visible is moving with the wind. "
The underlined is confusing to me. I am assuming Robert means atoms of matter
within the light path. The aether must be taken as independent of matter in a
vacuum for accurate measurement. If the beam of light is "flowing with the
aether drift", independent of any matter, this must be observable ... The MM
experiment would be more accurate on a platform in the vacuum of space or the
high mountain where the air is thinner. The aether is the major medium.
Example:
In the case of a pulzed signal travelling the second or so towards the moon, if
the aether was absolutely stationary, its arrival point will be directly
related to and displaced by the amount the target moon moved during that
second. However if the aether has independent motion of its own, then the
arrival point will be displaced by the differential movement between that of
the aether and that of the moon. Once the signal left the propagating antenna
the movement of the earth or otherwise has no effect.
The effect we look for is in wavelength, speed/frequency relationship. The
difference between air and vacuum is well known and can be compensated for. Is
it negligible enough to be ignored in the MM etc experiments? I would think so.
But it would seem that any attenuation due to air would be equal in all
directions, and only that deviation due to the aether component would be
measured. Aether = Vacuum in 3D.
Example:
In the case of a pulzed signal travelling the second or so towards the moon, if
the aether was absolutely stationary, its arrival point will be directly
related to and displaced by the amount the moon moved during that second.
However if the aether has independent motion of its own, then the arrival point
will be displaced by the differential movement between that of the aether and
that of the moon.
But then Robert said, "Atoms in solids like Lucite and quartz aren’t free to
move with aether, but are bound to their average lattice positions. Transparent
solids are thus eliminated as effective aether media. " .
"aether media" Whats this? And what atoms move with the aether?
But I think you are saying as I inferred above, that the crystal or glass will
contain and direct the wave independently of any aether flow through it.. It
will be the major medium component with respect to the aether, and less likely
to show any aether drift, such as would be observed in a vacuum or air.
This is based upon the reasonable presumption that EMR can be propagated by
different media, of which the aether/vacuum is just one, albiet the best. In
glass or crystal very little would be propagated by aether, which is presumed
to permeate ALL space.
e.g. The speed of EMR in distilled water is 1/9 or 0.1111etc of the speed in
the vacuum/aether. Thats only 20,666 miles per second. Just imagine if Dayton
Miller had used long tubes of distilled water in the light paths.. the aether
effect would be non existent.
Consequently can I conclude from this, that this is the reason Robert was not
accepting aetherdrift measurements attempted in equipment using these crystal
materials.?
Philip.
PS Sorry Robert, but GWW is too time consuming, and not easily navigated..
Maybe a condensed version would be a good idea. phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
Regner: Robert, Sorry for the long delay - and rest assured that it was not
due to an unwillingness to reply. My comments and questions in red.
The Müller et al. (2003) experiment: You spend many words describing and then
ridiculing the experiment for being performed in a lab, in vacuum and in solid
crystals. You do, however, not tell us why you find that problematic. I can
think of a couple of reasons, but please enlighten me about your reasons.
R. Sungenis: The portion I quoted was from Dr. Robert Bennett’s chapter. I
forwarded him your question and here is his response:
The reasons for rejection of these exp. conditions are mentioned several
times in my chapter. It was Dayton Miller and Reginald Cahill that found the
modern repetitions and analogs of the MMX problematic. I just agreed with their
logic – and evidence. Miller found that the periodic sidereal signal he
detected was markedly reduced with increased shielding, such as building walls
and distance underground. He also found the signal strength increased with
altitude, as on Mt. Wilson (see GWW). Most modern recreations of MMX are done
in the basement of huge concrete edifices – this is a problem, sometimes THE
problem.
Miller found an empirical dependence on the gas used as interferometer
medium, but it was Cahill who satisfactorily explained the dependence of aether
intensity on n, the index of refraction (see GWW).
All the modern experiments that claim c isotropy using a vacuum have thrown
the baby out with the bathwater. Detecting variation in c requires that there
be matter in motion relative to the earth – the Absolute Reference Frame.
Aether moving at speed v relative to earth (the ARF) can only be detected by
light being absorbed and emitted by atoms free to move with the aether.
Without matter present, the moving aether can’t be observed. Consider: the
speed of an airstream (wind) can’t be measured unless something visible is
moving with the wind.
So VACUUM MMXs ARE POINTLESS/IRRELEVANT.
The ideal aether detection occurs with a large n, the opposite of modern
exps. Atoms in solids like Lucite and quartz aren’t free to move with aether,
but are bound to their average lattice positions. Transparent solids are thus
eliminated as effective aether media.
Cahill is the definitive source - see GWW or
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS09.pdf
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS10.pdf
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS14.pdf
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS27.pdf
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS33.pdf
(for quantum foam, read aether)
Look forward to the parallax diagram resolution…..
Robert Bennett
Regner: The Miller experiments. Some major problems with your interpretation
of Miller's results:
1) The measured fringe-shifts corresponds to his experiment moving in the
North-South direction with respect to the aether! ...mostly - at other times
(when there is snow on the ground at the North and West walls of the lab-hut
and those two walls were water-soaked) the fringe-shifts has a maximum in the
N-W.
R. Sungenis: So then, it seems you are admitting that there is a real ether
drift. As for the directional anomaly, we already explained why Miller
understood his ether drift as originating from the southern celestial pole. It
was due to his belief that the earth was revolving around the sun which then
led him to use a triangulation method, which then led him to conclude the solar
system was moving toward Draco at 208/km/sec. We write:
Miller configured the four interferometer readings in the form of a
parallelogram (February, April, August, September), which assumes the Earth is
in orbit around the sun. The diagonal of each of the four parallelogram points
represents the apex of that period, while the long side represents the motion,
which is coincident with the center of orbit; the short side of the
parallelogram represents Earth velocity of 30 km/sec. Hence, knowing the
direction of the three sides of the triangle, and the magnitude of one side,
allows one to calculate the magnitude of the other sides, which for Miller was
208 km/sec toward Dorado. (See also Laurence Hetch in 21st Century – Science
and Technology, Spring 1988, pp. 47-48.)
But we don’t accept Miller’s triangulation, because it simply begs the
question of whether the earth is revolving around the sun. We only accept his
finding of an ether drift, for it confirms every other interferometer
experiment that measured the same or similar drift.
Regner: 2) When the observing conditions are stable (recognized by stable
fringes and the observations showing systematic effects) the phase (direction)
of the maximum in the fringe-shift, is constant over 5-6 (sidereal) hours of
observations.
R. Sungenis: Then, again, we have an example of an ether drift.
Regner: 3) The stability of the observations, and the phase of the maximum in
the fringe-shift, is highly correlated with temperature differences between the
walls of the lab-hut.
R. Sungenis: Maybe according to Shankland, but since Shankland retrieved only
the unpublished results from Miller’s experiments that included temperature
variation, Shankland’s conclusion was biased, and knowingly so. In all his
published results, Miller is insistent that all temperature interference was
eliminated, the very results that Shankland did not include in his report to
Einstein.
Regner: 4) A couple of his dawn observations are annotated with "sun shines
on interferometer" (they are obviously not included in his published final
results). These show the same phase as the observations taken just before dawn,
but have about twice the amplitude. This direct sunlight was only what leaked
in through cracks in the walls or around the door.
R. Sungenis: Again, Miller recognized this factor and eliminated it
afterward. That is why he didn’t publish this result. He only published the
results that eliminated the temperature factor so that the ether drift measured
would be an authentic one.
Regner: My summary of Miller's experiments: 2) means that the effect cannot
be due to the Earth rotating with respect to an aether - or the aether (and the
Universe?) spinning daily around a stationary Earth.
R. Sungenis: Again, we don’t accept Miller’s triangulation method that led to
directional finding, since he is assuming in his triangulation that the earth
is revolving around the sun.
Regner: 1) means that the effect cannot be due to a constant velocity w.r.t.
an aether.
R. Sungenis: Not necessarily. It may also mean that the equipment is not
perfect, and the lab environment is not perfect. All experiments worth their
salt take these contingencies into account, and that is why they make their
conclusions based on averages. But regardless whether the fringes were big or
small or somewhere in between, the fact remains that an ether drift was
detected, as was the case in all the other interferometer experiments,
including Sagnac’s in 1913 that measured ether drift with respect to rotation
instead of revolution, an experiment that Einstein failed to mention in any of
his literature.
Regner: 1) means that the effect cannot be due to an orbit around the Sun
w.r.t. an aether.
R. Sungenis: We agree, since we don’t believe the earth orbits the sun, and
therefore we don’t accept Miller’s triangulation based on that unproven
hypothesis.
Regner: 1, 3 and 4) makes it very likely that the observed effect is due to
temperature gradients in the lab-hut.
R. Sungenis: Again, if you were a disciple of Shankland you might believe so.
That’s why we went through the sordid history between Miller and Shankland and
Einstein to show why Shankland and Einstein had a vested interest in making
conclusions regarding Miller’s previous temperature gradient problems rather
than his corrected figures when the temperature gradient factor was removed.
Regner: Miller's experiment was quite stable against temperature
fluctuations, but not against stable (slowly changing) temperature gradients
across the whole experiment. Miller was strongly urged by both Einstein and
Lorentz to continue and improve his experiments.
R. Sungenis: But in each case, whether in the midst of large temperature
fluctuations or slowly changing temperature gradients, or no temperature
factor, Miller measured an ether drift. No experiment to date has ever
disproven that fact. If you don’t find this significant, they you’ll need to
show a battery of experiments that don’t show ANY ether drift. I don’t know of
any.
For the record, I don’t know any place where Einstein encourages Miller to
continue, but I know why Lorentz might have, since Lorentz believed in ether.
Einstein’s special relativity could not survive with an ether, at least until
he needed to invent general relativity and took back the ether that he
previously rejected and excused the reversal by saying the ether now in use
wasn’t a “ponderable” ether.
Regner: Some more comments interspersed below. By the way, I would much
appreciate if you didn't feel compelled to include whole chapters of your 1000
page book in these posts. Summaries would be quite adequate.
R. Sungenis: I think I have satisfied that concern in this post. However,
even if you find that extra material somewhat laborious, I include it for the
benefit of the others on the list who want to see the context of the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 13/04/2008
1:45 PM
Other related posts:
