My answer to Dr. Bennett's reply through R.
Sungenis.
First of all, two short paragraphs, one on each topic, would have be
more than
adequate.
Dr. Bennett wrote:
"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."
This is plain wrong. Either Dr. Bennett has not read R. Cahill's paper,
or he hasn't
bothered to check the simple algebra. Cahill's postulated Lorentz
contraction is the
only reason for the /n/²(/n/-1) factor (instead of /n/³) in the
fringe-shift (/n/ is the index
of refraction). As a vacuum has /n/=1, Cahill's theory predicts no
fringeshifts in vacuum
experiments. Without this Lorentz contraction you get the classical
fringeshift.
Dr. Bennett also lumps together R. Cahill's version of Lorentz
contraction with that
of special relativity - the two Lorentz contractions are fundamentally
different, as I
pointed out in my post (in this colour, below).
I will reply to the comments on the parallax plot in a separate, aptly
named post.
Regner Trampedach
P.S. Robert Sungenis, my name has no more letters than yours - I am
sure
you can get them all right.
Sungenis@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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
> <
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00140.html>,
> 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
> <
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00140.html>,
> 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
> <
http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001>.
