[geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:58:34 +1000
Response to RB here copy forwarded.
Phillip has chosen not to post my 4/28/08 response to his 4/28/08 forum postl –
so see attached. RB
Sorry, but I had not forwarded what I considered a side discussion on just what
was the nature of the EM and GI ethers. I was waiting a further clarification
first.. However Robert has given that here.
"There is an electromagnetic aether(EM) and a gravito-inertial(GI) aether. Is
it a mystery which one would propagate light – an electromagnetic wave? "
I see no need for this presumption. Gravity, inertia and the electrical fields
(electrostatic and magnetic) can be properties of the one aether. No one can
even speculate on what the Aether is. Aspden gave it electrical properties, but
that is pure speculation till someone proves it by duplicating his theoretical
experiments.. He also gave it inertial properties by the way.
Also I do not follow Roberts explanation of EM propagation especially in
mediums other than a vacuum .
But thenRobert said, "Atoms in solids like Lucite and quartz aren’t free to
move with [Robert B] GI aether, but are bound to their average lattice
positions. Transparent solids are thus eliminated as effective aether media.
"aether media " Whats this? [Robert B] detecting [Robert B] material capable
of detecting the GI aether by being free to move with it. And what atoms move
with the aether? [Robert B] All those in the path of the GI aether
I do not follow any of these theories, and can find no reference of a similar
view, even in GWW. I believe that even in a fixed insulator particles vibrate
to transfer wave motion. Aether or no aether. EVEN in a crystal lattice.
Dielectric strength or permeability? I forget..
Then , this which I may have held back pending....
As regards, "
e.g. The speed of EMR in distilled water is 1/9 or 0.1111etc of the speed in
the vacuum/aether.
[Robert B] Whoa…. Where’s this from? N for water is ~ 1.5 or 2/3 of c.
I got this straight from the ARRL handbook, 13th Edition 1977. Chapter 1 one
Wave Propagation.
" In solid insulating materials the speed is generally much slower ( than c);
for example, in distilled water (which is a good insulator) the waves travel
only one-ninth as fast as they do in space, In good conductors such as metals
the speed is so low that the opposing fields set up by the currents induced in
the conductor by the wave itself occupy practicaly the same space as the
original wave, and thus almost cancel it out. This is the reason for the skin
effect in conductors at high frequencies.."
[Robert B] So you are including x-rays and gamma rays in EMR. I was considering
only light, since that’s what optical astronomy uses (and our eyes) to verify
experiments. My mistake again. Double mea culpa. Robert B.
I make no distinction in the mechanism of propagation of emr over the entire
spectrum from 1Hz. up. And yes, Optical astronomy uses sight, or light, which
can be seen to propagate through glass or any transparent material.
Needless to say, there is much to be said in favour of Radio astronomy and
cosmic ray detection, but I am not biased..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 4:46 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
Regner,
Below is the reply from Dr. Bennett to your query about Cahill and the
parallax diagram. On the latter issue, Dr. Bennett suggests that I show you the
testimony from our book Galileo Was Wrong regarding the Neo-Tychonic model,
which, if you remember from my post from yesterday, I did, indeed, already send
to you, at least from one section of GWW. I might add that, your ignorance of
that model to explain geocentric parallax is about as surprising as your
ignorance, pointed out by Martin Selbrede, of General Relativity to allow a
fixed earth in a rotating universe, courtesy of Barbour & Bertotti, Lense &
Thirring, William Rosser, Hermann Bondi, et al, all of whose views and
explanations are included in GWW. If I may reiterate,you would have already
had access to these arguments (in addition to the sordid history between
Miller, Shankland and Einstein regarding the temperature effects of the
interferometer experiments) if you had accepted the original offer to have a
free copy of Galileo Was Wrong sent to you over a year ago. The offer still
stands, by the way.
Robert Sungenis
Dear Robert S.
I did cite a limited part of Reg Cahill’s Process Physics work in GWW; what
is described in your mail seems to be based on discussions on Nigel’s forum,
not on my GWW piece.
In GWW I said that Reg. provided a major contribution via his rigorous
analysis of the effect of n – index of refraction – on the measurement of c in
interferometers. RC proved that using vacuum and solid state media was useless
in detecting luminal anisotropy. Being an absolutist(aether) rather than a
geocentrist, he could hardly accurately represent my/our belief with his
Process Physics model. References to his Process Physics articles are for the
refractive analysis they contain - only. My apologies that wasn’t clear in the
prior dialogue.
Let’s not assume that geocentricity is a well-developed and detailed mature
theory, or that we all subscribe to Process Physics ….reading a few forum
dialogues would quickly disabuse anyone of that rash assumption of unanimity.
I myself prefer the term geostatist, which emphasizes my core belief, the
semantics of centrism being ambiguous.
The same lack of universal agreement is true of mainstream physics, which is
only united in its dogmatic opposition to a static earth. Almost all MS
physicists claim to be relativists, but relativity allows any choice of rest
frame, including Earth??! Some relativists claim the Sun must be the rest
frame - to compute Bradley aberration, others like NASA say the Solar
Barycenter is it, yet others the CMB. Some use the laboratory frame, without
realizing that it IS the GC frame. (Accepting these logical contradictions in
relativity is part of the modern thinking in physics, I suppose.) .
Re Lorentz contraction:
My GWW section explicitly shows that no experiment has independently
confirmed Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction; it remains an ad-hoc assumption,
unproven since introduced a century ago. Most physicists know that geocentrism
is based on the Galilean group.
Re:
If you don't include Cahill's postulate then you won't have a cancellation of
aether effects in vacuum Michelson-Morley interferometers - no throwing away of
babies with bathwater. And as Philip also points out in his post of 28/04/2008,
the logic is a bit strained. And two aethers - how does the light figure out
which aether to move in???
With no matter to detect and respond to the aether flow in the optical path,
the vacuum MM exp will in fact be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
RC’s Lorentz contraction postulate is irrelevant – a red herring.
Phillip has chosen not to post my 4/28/08 response to his 4/28/08 forum postl
– so see attached.
There is an electromagnetic aether(EM) and a gravito-inertial(GI) aether.
Is it a mystery which one would propagate light – an electromagnetic wave?
From another email re the parallax diagrams for HC & GC:
The bottom plot, however, is NOT equivalent to a geocentric Solar
system, where the stars would be fixed (actually have constant
velocities) with respect to the Earth, and there would be no parallax.
There is nothing secret or Earth-rattling about that bottom plot.
Regner
There’s nothing secret about the plot; it’s been published.
There’s nothing Earth-rattling, because the Earth cannot be moved.
Psalm 92 ……. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.
Please advise Regner to read the GWW section on the Neo-Tychonian model, in
which the stars orbit the Sun as secondary satellites of the Earth. Or he can
refer to the video clips on the CD. He is still using the discarded Ptolemaic
model.
In GC the stellar motion around the Sun, which is orbiting the Earth, is
equivalent to the HC diagram. After all, it’s just a coordinate transformation
from the Sun’s center to the Earth’s center which preserves angles. The stars
are centered on the Sun in the HC diagram; they must remain so in the GC
diagram. The Sun is the center of all the stars, as in HC, but the Earth is
the center of the universe.
So there’s no problem with the diagram except the misunderstanding re the
application of the NT GC model. After correcting this oversight, it will be
good to have his support.
Btw: How the stars can be both fixed and moving with constant velocity wrt
the Earth must be another relativity exception to logic…
He is risen indeed – Alleluia!
Robert B.
From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx [mailto:Sungenis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:25 AM
To: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx
Subject: From Trampedach to you, I believe
Robert B.
Astrophysicist Roger Trampedach, of the Geocentrism forum (that you vacated)
came back with this analysis of Cahill's ether. He addressed it to me, but,
after reading it, I believe he meant you.
If you care to respond, I'll forward it back to the list.
Robert S.
Robert Sungenis,
Let's attack this problem one issue at a time. I promise to return to the
other issues later. And let's start with R. Cahill's theory. Have you ever read
any of Cahill's papers? If you have, you would know that his theory is based on
the postulate that there is a Lorentz contraction - not based on the relative
speed between object and observer as in special relativity - but based on the
absolute speed of an object with respect to the aether. With all the ridiculing
of the Lorentz contraction in this forum, I'm rather surprised that you would
accept such an explanation. The big problem with this postulate is, of course,
that it has never been observed and that it is pretty hard to come up with a
theoretical explanation for it. Let me contrast the two cases:
Cahill:
* a physical squeezing of any moving object.
* If we were on the bridge of the USS Enterprise, traveling at 99% of c
(speed of light in vacuum) we would get physically very flat (14% of our normal
extent)
- when we turned around to face away from the flight-direction, we would
get flat sideways - it would take of energy to do this, and deposit a lot of
energy in our bodies - and I believe it would scramble us quite a bit. Looking
at each other at a 90° to the flight-direction, we would appear flat to each
other.
* Laws of physics would be quite different there!
* Since it involves physical squeezing of objects, how can this effect depend
on the velocity with respect to the aether only - and not depend at all on the
material of the object? It would take quite different amounts of energy to
squeeze air and steel. And what is supposed to happen to the constituent atoms?
* How come we have never observed such a squeezing of moving matter. Again,
the energies involved would be rather high. And I shudder to think how a
super-sonic fighter-jet would handle, when you get different results from the
laser-gyroscope depending on which direction you are flying!
* The theory is constructed to explain away the null results of modern M-M
style experiments that find no movement with respect to an aether to
one part in 400,000 billion.
Special Relativity:
* The contraction only appears when there is a relative velocity between
object and observer. It is a kind of "perspective effect".
* If we were on the bridge of the USS Enterprise, traveling at 99% of c
(speed of light in vacuum) we would not get flat. We would only seem flat to
observers back on Earth (traveling at 99% of c, with respect to us).
* Everything would behave perfectly normal and we would be able to dribble a
ball in exactly the same way as back on Earth, and the replicators would work
as usual...
* The contraction is only a perspective effect, so it can easily (and does)
result in the same contraction for any material - no problems with atomic
physics here.
* The theory is a results of two simple postulates (confirmed by
observations!):
a) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems.
b) The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial systems.
If you don't include Cahill's postulate then you won't have a cancellation of
aether effects in vacuum Michelson-Morley interferometers - no throwing away of
babies with bathwater. And as Philip also points out in his post of 28/04/2008,
the logic is a bit strained. And two aethers - how does the light figure out
which aether to move in???
I have interspersed a few other comments below and inserted divisions between
each persons
contributions - our mailing programs obviously handles replies differently.
- R. Trampedach
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at
AOL Food.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1410 - Release Date: 1/05/2008
5:30 PM
Other related posts:
