[geocentrism] Fw: Re: Point a) - the ether
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>, "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:10:58 +1000
Robert B pinned in his response in answer to my Question. As this was from his
as offered by Robert Sungenis, I place it here in full..
I must add that I do not understand his two differing aethers ,,,, I have only
one aether that pervades all space..
As regards, "
e.g. The speed of EMR in distilled water is 1/9 or 0.1111etc of the speed in
the vacuum/aether.
[Robert B] Whoa…. Where’s this from? N for water is ~ 1.5 or 2/3 of c.
I got this straight from the ARRL handbook, 13th Edition 1977. Chapter 1 one
Wave Propagation.
" In solid insulating materials the speed is generally much slower ( than c);
for example, in distilled water (which is a good insulator) the waves travel
only one-ninth as fast as they do in space, In good conductors such as metals
the speed is so low that the opposing fields set up by the currents induced in
the conductor by the wave itself occupy practicaly the same space as the
original wave, and thus almost cancel it out. This is the reason for the skin
effect in conductors at high frequencies .."
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: 'philip madsen'
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:06 AM
Subject: RE: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
Sorry, Phil – forgot to distinguish EM aether from GI aether (firmament) .
Mea maxima culpa.. I’ve been so excited by the Pope’s visit
See inserts
Robert B.
From: philip madsen [mailto:pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:56 PM
To: Robert Bennett; geocentrism list
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
In the response by Robert Sungenis,
Robert Bennett said : "[Robert B] GI 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 [Robert B] GI aether. Without matter present, the
moving [Robert B] GI aether can’t be observed. Consider: the speed of an
airstream (wind) can’t be measured unless something visible is moving with the
wind. "
The underlined is confusing to me. I am assuming Robert means atoms of matter
within the light path. [Robert B] YES The [Robert B] EM aether must be taken
as independent of matter in a vacuum for accurate measurement. If the beam of
light is "flowing with the[Robert B] GI aether drift", independent of any
matter, this must be observable ... The MM experiment would be more accurate on
a platform in the vacuum of space or the high mountain where the air is
thinner. The aether is the major medium.
[Robert B] GI aether circulation increases with altitude . Air density has no
effect. The interferometer must be a gas media design, as said before.
Example:
In the case of a pulzed signal travelling the second or so towards the moon, if
the [Robert B] GI aether was absolutely stationary, its arrival point will be
directly related to and displaced by the amount the target moon moved during
that second. However if the aether has independent motion of its own, [Robert
B] EM: No; GI:yes then the arrival point will be displaced by the
differential movement between that of the aether and that of the moon. [Robert
B] No. The GI aether/firmament moves the Moon => no delta in motion between
Moon and GI aether. Once the signal left the propagating antenna the movement
of the earth or otherwise has no effect.
The effect we look for is in wavelength, speed/frequency relationship. The
difference between air and vacuum is well known and can be compensated
for.[Robert B] This is a property of the EM aether… Is it negligible enough to
be ignored in the MM etc experiments? I would think so.
[Robert B] No. see your fellow Aussie Reg Cahill. The index of refraction and
the aether motion determine the optical fringe shift
But it would seem that any attenuation due to air would be equal in all
directions, and only that deviation due to the [Robert B] GI aether component
would be measured. Aether = Vacuum in 3D.
But thenRobert said, "Atoms in solids like Lucite and quartz aren’t free to
move with [Robert B] GI aether, but are bound to their average lattice
positions. Transparent solids are thus eliminated as effective aether media. "
.
"aether [Robert B] detecting media" Whats this? [Robert B] material capable of
detecting the GI aether by being free to move with it. And what atoms move
with the aether? [Robert B] All those in the path of the GI aether
But I think you are saying asI inferred above, that the crystal or glass will
contain and direct the wave [Robert B] actually, will absorb and re-emit the
photons
independently of any aether flow through it..[Robert B] the lattice atoms will
vibrate faster(heat up) but will not produce a visible shift due to the GI
aether. It will be the major medium component with respect to the aether, and
less likely[Robert B] unlikely to show any aether drift, such as would be
observed in a vacuum or air.
[Robert B] Vacuum will show no shift! No matter to make the GI aether motion
visible!
This is based upon the reasonable presumption that EMR can be propagated by
different media, of which the [Robert B] EM aether/vacuum is just one, albiet
the best. In glass or crystal very little would be propagated by aether, which
is presumed to permeate ALL space. [Robert B] There is vacuum between the atoms
in a solid ; the delay in EMR transmission is due to the time delay in
absorption and re-emission of the EMR, a characteristic of the solid type.
e.g. The speed of EMR in distilled water is 1/9 or 0.1111etc of the speed in
the vacuum/aether.
[Robert B] Whoa…. Where’s this from? N for water is ~ 1.5 or 2/3 of c.
Thats only 20,666 miles per second. Just imagine if Dayton Miller had used long
tubes of distilled water in the light paths.. the aether effect would be non
existent. [Robert B] LOL
Consequently can I conclude from this, that this is the reason Robert was not
accepting aetherdrift measurements attempted in equipment using these crystal
materials.?
Philip.
PS Sorry Robert, but GWW is too time consuming, and not easily navigated..
Maybe a condensed version would be a good idea. phil
[Robert B] Has RT answered the stellar parallax diagram yet??
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
Regner: 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
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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, 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.
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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 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.
Regner: 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.
Regner: 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: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 13/04/2008
1:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1400 - Release Date: 27/04/2008
9:39 AM
Other related posts:
