[geocentrism] Reply to Regners concernsr

Reply to Regners concerns.

"and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or liars
or plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
forum, either in person or through being a scientist." Regner

Regner I can easily see you take things too personally when they are not 
directed at you..  If I infer that Shankland is a con-man, this does not mean 
that I think you are. Indeed if I infer that 50% of employed scientists, put 
money and income and career first above truth, (my own brother admitted to me 
that he was one of these) this does not mean I include you. 

I have already once specifically mentioned this before..lost somewhere in the 
maze.   

You also said, "and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or 
liars
or plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
forum, either in person or through being a scientist. "  

On my side ?  I'm a loner here.. well nearly . I think there are two Catholics 
left lol. But I get your drift, Geocentrism  v Establishment. 

Well I have every reason to do so. Call anyone dogmatic or liars
or plain stupid ,on my side  and have done so without actually naming any 
individuals as I am not able to judge the conscience of any man including 
yourself..  Niether am I able to assess any evidence of individual persons 
moral position. However I am absolutely certain that the evidence over history 
does support my contention that a great many people whether Scientists or 
Preachers have a vested interest in being either liars or stupid or even both. 
Piltdown Man is the earliest I remember. Marconi stole from Tesla. Nearly 
everybody stole from Tesla.

 I would be stupid if I did not believe that. Whether you are one such as 
these, is your own call according to your own conscience. I hope I have always 
shown that I would never accuse you, and could never accuse anyone.  I can and 
do accuse the Pope of doing evil, but I cannot accuse him of being evil. 

I did so only once to my own brother , when I accused him of denying a basic 
scientific truth and not publically admitting it, as regards the OZONE hoax as 
it involved refrigerants. We both had the same basic training. . He said "Its a 
good lie. I will lie for a good cause.." He had no God you see. 

"And that cause is no doubt your carreer, and the BIG Salary you get. Why is it 
a good lie?"

"It makes people conscious of the environment "  he grinned..  

I stand by my original contention..  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  
Especially the very rich and powerful piper. Only a young rebel angry non 
religious Irish man like myself will buck the system on truth and take the 
penalty. I had to walk out on the British Blue Streak  project simply because 
it was launching in the wrong direction, and the head Scientis Director knew 
it..  He said to me, acknowledging the error..." I like my money coming in 
regularly... If you don't , then rest assured you will be leaving , not me.. "" 
 

I find it disconcerting that you seem to infer that science unlike other 
professions is above reproach, and you take it personally when we say 
otherwise. Take this example.

You say, 
 That you and R. Sungenis implies that we follow the man at the
expense of the evidence is offensive and I frankly find it down-right
childish.

I do wish you would have given evidence of where we had said this anywhere, 
especially with respect to yourself. 

I note that you used "we", as in  "implies that we follow the man"    If you 
personally do not follow the man , then why take it apon yourself to defend the 
profession as though it was directed at you personally..  That could be called 
childish, but I prefer illogical. 

I was surprised to get your post , perhaps you were having a happy hour..  

As I am now. You need to spend more time down in Aussie in the local pub..  

 Cheers Philip. .  







  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Regner Trampedach 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:25 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether


  Philip, I have asked in the past for a minimum of respect and in the
  past you have actually agreed to that.
  In the sciences we follow the evidence, not whoever suggests a
  theory. At the front of science there are many unsettled issues
  and it is not clear where the cards will fall - you'll have scientists
  in various "camps" - but when the issue is settled by decisive
  observations/experiments - that's it. There is no worshiping of 
  anyone and there is no faith-based following.
    That you and R. Sungenis implies that we follow the man at the
  expense of the evidence is offensive and I frankly find it down-right
  childish. We are here to find the truth - lets not decide on the
  outcome until it's there. I am spending a fair amount of time open-
  mindedly investigating the various claims brought up by this forum
   - and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or liars
  or plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
  forum, either in person or through being a scientist. 
    And more to the point; It has been my experience through life that
  people who resort to that kind of accusations are rather insecure. 
  I am not saying that you or R. Sungenis are, but maybe you want to
  think about how you are perceived.
    Can we please keep this discussion civil and keep to the science?

        Regner



  philip madsen wrote: 
    R. Sungenis: Again, if you were a disciple of Shankland

    Such remarks have no place in a serious discussion - please cut it out.

    Yes they do Regner. Are you denying there can be complicity  in support 
among scientists. How many of them combined to deny Flight?  How many today are 
combining to support Global warming, an obvious political interference using 
monetary pressures.   I don't know the morality of Shankland, but surely it may 
be questioned just as much as was Galelleo. Lets look at the evidence before 
just wiping or cutting it out. 

    Philip. 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Regner Trampedach 
      To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:48 PM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether


      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


      Sungenis@xxxxxxx wrote: 
        R. Trampedach: 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 


                  """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"""""""""

        R. Trampedach: 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.
        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        R. Trampedach: 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.
        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        R. Trampedach: 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.
        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        R. Trampedach: 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.


        
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        R. Trampedach: 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.
      
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        R. Trampedach: 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,

      Sorry, but your proclamation of 'facts' is a bit premature.

        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.
        
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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'.


        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

      Such remarks have no place in a serious discussion - please cut it out.

        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.
        
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        R. Trampedach: 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.
        
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        R. Trampedach: 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date: 
29/04/2008 6:27 PM



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date: 30/04/2008 
6:10 PM

Other related posts: