[geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 09:48:16 +1000
At the time though I thought it strange, I did not think to question it till
now.
Regner said,
And two aethers - how does the light figure out which aether to move in???
Hmm well as said previously One ether is enough, and even it has two names..
of which aether is the most logical...separating it from "ether" the chemical
ether group.
Short selected exerpts from wiki:
Aether originally was the personification of the "upper sky", space and heaven,
in Greek mythology.
The term aether, æther or ether may also refer to one of the following:
a.. The aether of classical elements is a concept, historically, used in
science (as a medium) and in philosophy (as a substance).
a.. Any number of aether theories in alchemy, natural philosophy, and
modern physics which suppose a "fifth element".
b.. Luminiferous aether, in early physics considered to be the medium
through which light propagates
b.. Ether, a class of chemical compounds, or specifically:
a.. Diethyl ether, which has the common name "ether".
b..
a.. Etheric plane, in some esoteric teachings, one of the planes of existence
a.. Etheric body, in some esoteric teachings, a sort of aura that constitutes
the "blueprint" of the physical body
In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether (or ether), meaning light-bearing
aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.[1]
The word aether stems via Latin from the Greek αἰθήρ, from a root meaning to
kindle, burn, or shine. It signified the substance thought in ancient times to
fill the upper regions of space, beyond the clouds.
Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the concept
of aether. Today the aether is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.
I am glad that they said is "regarded as superceded," since such is not proven
to be so. Regarded is not even as strong as "believing" it to be true.... So
and however, the minority opinion is alive and well....
Moreover, it is hard to develop an aether theory that is consistent with all
experiments of modern physics. Any new theory of aether must be consistent with
all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general
relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on. As outlined earlier,
these conditions are often contradictory, making such a task inherently
difficult. Ho! Ho! Ho! Ho! thats for sure.
Nevertheless the intuitive appeal of a causal background for "relativistic"
effects cannot be denied. Some physicists hold that there remain a number of
problems in modern physics that are simplified by an aether concept, so that
Occam's razor doesn't apply.
So here is how Wiki writes off Cahill....
Maurizio Consoli of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics in
Catania, Sicily, argues in Physics Letters A (vol 333, p 355) that any
Michelson-Morley type of experiment carried out in a vacuum will show no
difference in the speed of light even if there is an aether. According to him,
electroweak theory and quantum field theory suggest that light could appear to
move at different speeds in different directions in a medium such as a dense
gas in contradiction with special relativity; the speed of light would be
sensitive to motion relative to an aether and the refractive index of the
medium. Consoli and Evelina Costanzo propose an experiment with laser light
passing through cavities filled with a relatively dense gas. With the Earth
passing through an aether wind, light would travel faster in one direction than
in the perpendicular direction.[14] Consoli and Constanzo have not run the
proposed experiment. The mathematical treatment of their paper does not use the
relativistic dragging coefficient to account for the speed of light in a moving
medium, and most physicists regard this as an elementary error that leads to
their incorrect conclusions. Their paper is very similar to another similarly
flawed paper by Reg Cahill ("R.T. Cahill A New Light-Speed Anisotropy
Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, in Progress in
Physics, vol 4 , 2006" ), another proponent of an experiment that would detect
the elusive "preferential frame". Cahill claims to have detected absolute
motion with respect to a preferential frame but his paper suffers from the same
mathematical shortcomings as the Consoli-Constanzo paper as well as from lack
of experimental error bars in his experimental data processing. Consequently,
their research had no impact on the physics community.
I am tempted to carry on and answer this titbit, but back to work, with
reference to what Regner said.
And two aethers - how does the light figure out which aether to move in???
Well the question really resolves down to how does the light or any EMR figure
out which medium to move in, if two or more exist in the same space.
Isn't it obvious ? How does sound propagate through a sponge filled with
water? The mixture forms a resultant medium.
I mentioned earlier how light propagated at 0.111C in distilled water. Make it
salt water and the speed is even slower.
I guess the aether pervades the same space as the atoms of matter. We know that
the space of matter is mostly vacuum. So it can be guessed that EMR will be
slowed down according to the average density of the materials including the
vacuum .
This might help.
characteristic impedance of free space
The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of free space,
is an expression of the relationship between the electric-field and
magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic field (EM field) propagating
through a vacuum. The Zo of free space, like characteristic impedance in
general, is expressed in ohms, and is theoretically independent of wavelength.
It is considered a physical constant.
Mathematically, the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio
of the permeability of free space (µo) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the
permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m):
Zo = (µo/o)1/2
= [(1.257 x 10-6 H/m)/(8.85 x 10-12 F/m)]1/2
= 377 ohms (approximately)
The exact value of the Zo of free space is 120 pi ohms, where pi is the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
The Zo of dry air is similar to that of free space, because dry air has little
effect on permeability or permittivity. However, in environments where the air
contains seawater spray, excessive humidity, heavy precipitation, or high
concentrations of particulate matter, the Zo is slightly reduced.
Characteristic impedance is important to wireless communications engineers
involved in antenna design.
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:
