Me in green. - Regner
Sungenis@xxxxxxx wrote:
Regner,
The issues about Cahill's ether that you
brought up for discussion have been forwarded to Dr. Bennett for his
comments, since he deals with Cahill in his part of the book.
I am looking forward to his response.
As for your comments in red below, I have
responded with my own comments in blue.
Robert Sungenis
_______________
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.
Sorry, but your proclamation of 'facts' is a bit
premature.
RS2: If you think they are premature, then show us any
qualified study that did not find at least some resistance to the
velocity of light in an interferometer. As such, you can call the
resistance anything you wish. I call it ether, because I don't
believe *nothingness* impedes the speed of light, just like I don't
believe that nothingness can shorten the length of the interferometer
arm. Of the two, I think that a motionless Earth against a rotating
universe is a better explanation for the slight fringe shifting than
saying matter shrinks,
The "matter shrinks" part, is exactly my
objection to Cahill's theory...
time dilates and mass increases. Call me pigheaded if
you wish, but I think Occam is on my side, not yours.
That you proclaim as a fact, that "an ether drift was detected", precludes
any further discussion of
the subject. I have seen nothing so far, to convince me of that "fact"
and yet I have not declared
it wrong - I'm leaving open both possibilities. I am going to
investigate yours and Dr. Bennett's
claim that Miller carried out temperature insensitive experiments - and
I will reserve judgment till
then. I believe that to be the open-minded approach.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Trampedach: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure hope you don't consider that
statement 'scientific reasoning'.
RS2: It is a scientific fact that if you
believe in heliocentrism, then one of the ways you can determine the
direction and speed of the sun is by triangulating against the earth's
motion around the sun. That's what Miller stated as a scientific fact.
But the other scientific fact that he forgot to mention was that he was
assuming as a scientific fact that the earth revolved around the sun,
but without scientific proof. Hence, it is thus a scientific fact that
he cannot determine the speed and direction of the sun toward Draco by
triangulating it against the earth, at least not to the discrediting of
the other plausible alternative, namely, that the earth doesn't move
and therefore triangulation is not applicable in all cases.
I apologize for that one. I misunderstood the
triangulation procedure.
Your statement is reasonable, but has it's own problems that I'll come
back to when we
have cleared up the Cahill theory.
R. Trampedach: 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.
Such remarks have no place in a serious discussion -
please cut it out.
RS2: I guess you're right. The secret motivations of
men who crave the limelight with Einstein's fame and fortune shouldn't
be a part of this discussion. We should just stick with the scientific
facts. That being the case, it is a fact that Shankland presented to
Einstein only Miller's temperature-effected results, and ignored the
ones in which Miller eliminated the temperature effects. If you would
like to read up on this history, Regner, I'll be glad to foward the
section from Galileo Was Wrong that covers it.
Thanks. Please ignore my inclusion of your name
in my
response to Philip's
post.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Need a new ride? Check out the largest
site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
|
