[geocentrism] Fw: Re: Ether Drift - Answer to Neville's question
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:16:20 +1000
Now that we should have all gone into religious hibernation, I would like to
get back to discussing the Aether, especially as Paul continues to ignore
previous information and deny its existence.
He like many call the MM experiment as having a NULL result...ie implying there
was no result, when in truth there was a result which was NULL to those
expecting proof of a planet translating around the sun. It was not NULL to
those expecting a relative motion between a rotating earth and a static aether
or vice versa,
To this end I repost a word from Robert Sungenis on the MM experiment. The key
point made which I extract here 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.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Ether Drift - Answer to Neville's question
Neville,
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.4/936 - Release Date: 4/08/2007 2:42
PM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Fw: Re: Ether Drift - Answer to Neville's question
