-----Original Message-----
From: sungenis@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:51:56 EDT
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Ether Drift - Answer to Neville's questionNeville,
In regard to our use of the 4 km/sec ether drift figure in GWW, we don’t assign a latitude to the 4 km/sec average of the ether drift. It is, so to speak, an average of all the experiments at all the latitudes. Actually, we shouldn’t have been as precise as a “4 km/sec” average because, quite frankly, the results of all the interferometer experiments ranged from close to 0km/sec to as high as 13 km/sec.
In our original draft of GWW, we had “1-4km/sec,” because, there seemed to be more experiments after MM that were closer to 1km than 4km. For us to zero-in on 4km/sec as an average may be misleading, since obviously there is a great margin of error to be expected in these experiments. Now that you bring this up, I may change the figure of 4km/sec since I see how misleading it might be. (I have listed some footnotes at the end of this letter from GWW that give these ranges and have underlined the figures of interest).
We do point out some equivocal language in the results of the MM experiment in this regard, however. One report says:
On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether: The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this...It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the Earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel’s explanation of aberration, and that the velocity of the Earth with respect to the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.[1]
In the 1881 experiment they wrote the following, using the square of the velocity as proportional to the fringe-shifting to get the one-sixth value:
Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v2/V2 = 2D × 10-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 107 wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.[2]
One of our following paragraphs says:
What, precisely, do all these figures mean in regard to the heliocentric/geocentric debate? In the heliocentric theory, the Earth is moving through the ether with both a diurnal and translational movement, that is, it spins on its axis at about 1054 mph (0.45 km/sec) and orbits the sun at about 66,000 mph (30 km/sec), which means that the Earth’s rotation speed is 1.6% of its revolution speed.[3] Clearly, then, the bulk of the ether resistance against the Earth will come from the translational movement as opposed to the diurnal rotation. But if we subtract the translational movement, the remaining resistance will come only from the diurnal movement. This situation is identical to what would occur in the geocentric model, since in the geocentric system there is no translational movement of the Earth against the ether, yet there is a diurnal movement. In other words, the universe’s ether is rotating around a fixed Earth at the same rate that the Earth in the heliocentric system would be rotating against the fixed ether, that is, on a 24-hour basis. Accordingly, in the geocentric system only the diurnal movement of the Earth against the ether will show up as fringe shifts in the interferometer experiments, and thus we would expect a measurement of shifts much less than the fringe shifts corresponding to the translational movement of 30 km/sec. All things being equal, we would expect the diurnal movement to produce fringe-shifting corresponding to a mere fraction of the fringe-shifting expected for 30 km/sec.
This is precisely what we find in the description given above by Michelson and Morley (albeit, they did not attribute it to a non-translating Earth). They tell us that: “The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this.”[4] A “twentieth part” of the fringe shifting corresponding to 30 km/sec brings us to fringe shifting corresponding to at least 1.5 km/sec. After they run this figure through their calculations, Michelson and Morley then tell us: “the velocity of the Earth with respect to the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.” One sixth of 30 km/sec is 4.8 km/sec, which agrees precisely with the average of 4.0 km/sec in the majority of the interferometer experiments. In brief, the geocentric model has a simple explanation for the unexpected results of the Michelson-Morley experiment: the Earth is fixed and the universe and its ether rotate around it.
Perhaps just as important concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment was, even with this small evidence of ether movement, the two scientists concluded that Fresnel’s “explanation of aberration” was “refuted” by their 1887 interferometer experiment. We will recall that Fresnel explained Arago’s stellar aberration results by postulating that it was caused by glass mediums “dragging” ether against an immobile ether that surrounded the glass. Interestingly enough, Michelson and Morley had previously stated in 1886 that, after the repeat of Fizeau’s experiment in 1884, they had, at that time, confirmed Fresnel’s formula stating: “the result of this work is therefore that the result announced by Fizeau is essentially correct: and that the luminiferous ether is entirely unaffected by the motion of the matter which it permeates.”[5] So we have Michelson and Morley giving us two different stories, but the one to which they adhere is the 1887 judgment showing that science had no answer to Arago’s experiment and that the Earth’s 30 km/sec clip through space was coming to a screeching halt unless somebody could come up with an explanation.
Still, since the measured ether movement came nowhere near the expected 30 km/sec, the science community invariably considered the Michelson-Morley results as “null.” There were a few voices, however, that did not consider the results trivial. As early as 1902, W. M. Hicks, made a thorough criticism of the experiment and concluded that instead of giving a null result, the numerical data published in Michelson-Morley’s paper shows distinct evidence of an expected effect (i.e., ether drift). Unfortunately, the science community has completely ignored Hicks’ paper.[6]
I would also add that if we calculate based on the raw data of the 1881 experiment, and since MM said that the displacement was between one twentieth and perhaps less than one fortieth of what they expected, if we take one fortieth of 30 km/sec we have 0.75 km/sec. One fiftieth would be precisely 0.45 km/sec, the exact figure corresponding to the movement of ether you stated at the equator.
In any case, the important theme we wanted to being out in GWW in light of all these experiments is: (a) the fringe shifts were no where near what would be expected for an Earth moving at 30km/sec around the sun, and (b) that the results of all the interferometer experiments showed that they did not exhibit “null” results, but results in keeping with some movement between Earth and its environment. The hard part is trying to figure out just how fast or slow that movement is.
The heliocentrists, of course, are in a quagmire either way, since if they choose to attribute the ether drift to a rotation of the Earth in an immovable environment, then they must also incorporate a revolution of the Earth around the sun to account for the seasons, which then requires at least a 30 km/sec drift, and thus the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
From the geocentric model, if there is any excess ether drift above 0.464 km/sec, I would attribute it, perhaps, to some additional ether winds that are independent of and not concurrent with the universe’s rotation. We talk about some of these in our Hildegard section and try to put some scientific basis to them. Hildegard says there is an independent high-speed vortex around the sun that slows quite rapidly with increasing radius from the sun.
Let me know if this makes sense to you. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, feel free to speak.
Robert Sungenis
PS. Below are the footnotes on the wide ranges of the ether drift in km/sec.[7]
[1] “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, editors James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.
[2] A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341. As one textbook calculates it: “Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v2/c3. Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2/(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe. But they found no significant fringe shift whatever….Never did they observe a significant fringe shift. This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century” (Physics: Principles with Applications, Fourth Edition, Douglas C. Giancoli, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 749). Notice that the author does not say there was no fringe shift, but that there was no “significant fringe shift.”
[3] However, in terms of acceleration, where a = v2/r, the translation is only 5% of the rotation.
[4] “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.
[5] “Influence of Motion of the Medium on the Velocity of Light,” American Journal of Science, 31:386-377, 1886, emphasis in the original.
[6] Hicks writes: “…the adjustment of the mirrors can easily change from one type to the other on consecutive days. It follows that averaging the results of different days in the usual manner is not allowable unless the types are all the same. If this is not attended to, the average displacement may be expected to come out zero – at least if a large number are averaged” (W. M. Hicks, “On the Michelson-Morley Experiment Relating to the Drift of the Ether,” Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, vol. 3, 1902, p. 34, see also pp. 9-42. Hicks is cited in Héctor A. Múnera’s “An Absolute Space Interpretation of the Non-Null Results of Michelson-Morley and Similar Experiments” in Apeiron, Vol. 4, No. 2-3, April-July 1997, who, in turn, cites E. T. Whittaker’s two volume work A History of the Theories of Ether and Electricity (1887), which mentions Hicks’ work, minus the negative conclusion of Michelson-Morley. A year later, Múnera wrote “Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Difference Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space.” He states: “Despite the null interpretation of their experiment…it is quantitatively shown that the outcomes of the original experiment, and all subsequent repetitions, never were null. Additionally, due to an incorrect inter-session averaging, the non-null results are even larger than reported” (Apeiron, Vol. 5, Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998, p. 37). Summarizing the findings, M. Consoli and E. Costanzo write: “The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect the relative motion of the Earth…by measuring the shifts of the fringes in an optical interferometer. These shifts…were found to be much smaller than expected….However…the fringe shifts observed by Michelson and Morley, while certainly smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital velocity of the Earth, were not negligibly small. This point was clearly expressed by Hicks: ‘…the numerical data published in the Michelson-Morley paper, instead of giving a null result, show a distinct evidence of an effect of the kind to be expected’ and also by Miller. In the latter case, Miller’s refined analysis of the half-period, second-harmonic effect observed in the original experiment, and in the subsequent ones by Morley and Miller [1905], showed that all data were consistent with an effective, observable velocity lying in the range of 7-10 km/s. For comparison, the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a value vobs ~ 8.8 km/s for the noon observations and a value vobs ~ 8.0 km/s for the evening observations” (“The Motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley Experiment,” Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’ Università di Catania, November 26, 2003, p. 1). The authors add: “Our findings completely confirm Miller’s indication of an observable velocity vobs ~ 8.4 km/s in their data.”
[7] Lynch writes: “…a series of experiments of Professor Piccard of Brussels which at first failed to show, even at the summit of the Rigi, at over six thousand feet of altitude, an ether wind of more than one and a half kilometers a second. Experiments by balloon gave a very different result, the ether wind at eight thousand feet being nine kilometers a second” (The Case Against Einstein, p. 45). Galaev reports that the results were 7 km/sec and that the team concluded that “We cannot discuss Miller’s result on the basis of this experimental series, as our measurement’s accuracy is just on the border of Miller’s observations” (“Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 213). Galaev’s observation will become more meaningful when we address Miller’s results. Analyzing Piccard’s data, Múnera writes: “From 96 turns of an interferometer in a balloon over Belgium they obtained a speed of 6.9 km/s with a probable error of 7 km/s. According to conventional statistical practice, the result simply means that at 50% confidence level the true speed is in the interval from 0 to 13.9 km/s. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that one particular value (say, 0 km/s, or 13 km/s) is more likely than another. Then, Piccard and Stahel result is completely consistent with those of Miller….They repeated the experiment in Brussels. Their results are (translating from the French) ‘60 turns of the apparatus produced an average displacement of 0.0002 ± 0.0007 fringes, which are incompatible with Miller’s results.’ Not so. Using equations V = V0 √(|D| /DR) = C √|D| and V0 = VI for D = D0 for their equipment, we get 1.7 ± 3.1 km/s. Assuming that 3.1 km/s was a probable error (as in the balloon experiment), a one-tailed test says that [the] true speed was lower than 9.3 km/s at 95% C.L. Again, compatible with Miller’s results. Brylinski long ago criticized the interpretation of Piccard and Stahel on similar grounds (E. Brylinski, “Sur la vitesse relative de la terre et de éther avoisinant,” Comptes Rendus 184, 1927, 192-193). They unconvincingly replied thus (our translation): ‘all our measurements have given ether winds lower than the probable error of our measures, so that we cannot conclude in favor of Miller, as Brylinski does’ (A. Piccard and E. Stahel, “Sur le vent d éther,” Comptes Rendus, 184, 1927, 451-452….Piccard and Stahel repeated the experiment at Mt. Rigi in Switzerland. From 120 turns of the interferometer they found (translating from French): ‘a sinusoidal curve whose amplitude is 40 times smaller than the curve that Miller would have predicted, all these within the limits of our probable errors….this curve corresponds to an ether wind of 1.45 km/s’ (“L absence du vent d ether au Rigi,” Comptes Rendus, 185, 1927, 1198-1200). Again, note [third systematic error]. Also, this is not a zero speed. Unfortunately, they did not report the probable error” (Héctor Múnera, “Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Difference Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space,” Apeiron, Vol. 5, Nr. 1-2, Jan.-April 1998, p. 45).
K. K. Illingworth, “A repetition of the Michelson-Morley experiment using Kennedy’s refinement,” Physical Review, 30, 692-696, 1926. Múnera writes: “…most papers exhibit an inconsistency between observation (a non-zero velocity) and interpretation (a null result). This paper is no exception….As usual in other papers, a high experimental resolution is suggested by quoting small fringe-shifts. However, Illingworth’s Table I immediately tells us that the quoted sensitivity (1/1500 to 1/500 fringe-shift) is not that good: 3 to 5 km/s. This velocity resolution is from 10% to 17% of the velocity to be measured! (Not an excellent resolution as suggested by the experimenters)….As noted…for the Piccard and Stahel case, the standard interpretation of statistical errors is that the true ether velocity is within the error bounds at some specified C.L. For instance for session 1A at 11 a.m., the average velocity is 2.12 km/s, the true velocity being between 0.89 and 3.35 km/s at 50% C.L. Of course, for higher confidences the uncertainty band is wider. Similarly for the other seven sessions. Clearly, Illingworth’s results were not null. However, Illingworth was not very certain as to what the interpretation should be, as exemplified by the following rather obscure paragraph from his conclusions: ‘Since in over one half the cases the observed shift is less than the probable error the present work cannot be interpreted as indicating an ether drift to an accuracy of one kilometer per second’ (page 696)” (Héctor Múnera, “Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Difference Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space,” Apeiron, Vol. 5, Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998, pp. 46-47).
G. Joos, “Die Jenaer Wiederholung des Michelsonversuchs,” Annalen der Physik S. 5, vol. 7, No. 4 (1930), 385-407. Joos used a quartz-based optical interferometer placed in a vacuum-metallic chamber with photographic detectors. He found that the “required” ethereal wind did not exceed a value of 1 km/sec. One reason Joos’ results may have been low, as posited by V. A. Atsukovsky, is that the electrons in Joos’ metal covering created a Fermi surface and thus partially shielded the apparatus from the ether’s movement. He writes: “It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212, translation improved). Galaev concludes: “The known works…cannot be ranked as experiments which could confirm or deny Miller’s results [or] confirm or deny the hypothesis about the ether’s existence in nature.” Múnera adds: “…Joos’ curves for individual measurements do not need to have the same amplitude and shape. Indeed, Joos observed such differences (see his figure 11, page 404). Unfortunately, Joos did not expect such variations (again, another instance of systematic error #2), so that he rejected all large amplitudes as due to experimental errors (he particularly mentions session 11 at 23:58). From smaller amplitudes, Joos obviously obtained a small velocity that he reported (translating from German) as ‘an ether wind smaller than 1.5 km/s’ (page 407). Even then, this is not a zero velocity” (Héctor Múnera, “Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Difference Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space,” Apeiron, Vol. 5, Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998, pp. 48-49).
Robert Shankland categorized the experiments from Michelson to Joos in a 1955 article. He separates them into “Fringe Shift Expected” (FSE) and “Fringe Shift Measured” (FSM). The results he records are as follows: 1881 Michelson: FSE: 0.04, FSM: 0.02 [r = 50%]; 1887 Michelson-Morley: FSE: 0.4, FSM: <0.01 [r = 2.5%]; 1902-04 Morley-Miller: FSE: 1.13, FSM: 0.015 [r = 1.3%]; 1921 Miller: FSE: 1.12, FSM: 0.08 [r = 7.1%]; 1923-1924 Miller: FSE: 1.12, FSM: 0.03 [r = 2.6%]; 1924 Miller (sunlight): FSE: 1.12, FSM: 0.014 [r = 1.2%]; 1924 Tomascheck (starlight): FSE: 0.3, FSM: 0.02 [r = 6.62%]; 1925-26 Miller: FSE 1.12, FSM: 0.088 [r = 7.8%]; 1926 Kennedy: FSE: 0.07, FSM: 0.002 [r = 2.8%]; 1927 Illingworth: FSE: 0.07, FSM: 0.0002 [r = 0.28%]; 1927 Piccard and Stahel: FSE:0.13, FSM: 0.006 [r = 4.6%]; 1929 Michelson: FSE: 0.9, FSM: 0.01 [r = 1.1%]; 1930 Joos: FSE: 0.75, FSM: 0.002 [r = 0.26%] (R. S. Shankland, et al., Review of Modern Physics 27:2, 167-178 (1955), my ratios supplied in brackets. Except for Illingworth and Joos, whose results may be accounted for by Atsukovsky’s explanation; and Michelson’s 1881 effort which Lorentz discounted, all the other experiments show a ratio of FSE:FSM ranging from 1.1% to 7.8%, which means that all the experiments were basically seeing the same thing – a slight ether drift within the same parameters. Interestingly enough, the 1887 Michelson-Morley has a FSE:FSM ratio of 2.5%, and here Shankland inserts “8 km/sec” as the “Upper Limit on Velocity of Ether.” Although he shows no other “Upper Limit” values except for Illingworth at “1 km/sec,” we would assume that the higher the ratio the higher the ether velocity. Proportionately, then, Miller’s 1925 ratio of 7.8% would correspond to his findings of “10 km/sec.”
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
