[geocentrism] Re: Gravity 1
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:28:56 -0400
Relative to experiments done to establish the presence of an aether using
light beams based upon the analogy of wave motion in a material fluid.
Keeping in mind that all these aetheric experiments were to prove the earth
moved in a stationary aether.
Robert, thanks for your input. I am in the process of incorporating your
comments into the draft, which is developing.
In the meantime I am stopped at a point by your confidence in Dayton Miller?
s follow-up experiments. Why would you place more confidence in such
relatively unsophisticated equipment compared to what can be done today?
He was a thorough and careful experimenter who repeated MM type exps under
controlled conditions for over 30 years.
Modern precision experiments have continually verified the results brought
into question by Miller, discounting his repeated attempts.
Also covered in GWW. Modern laser exps use a vacuum and are performed in
heavily shielded buildings or underground. These eliminate aether
detection.
Some mod exps avoid the environment above; they detect the aether and its
direction of flow?..listed in GWW.
I place here some conflicting reports. . Perhaps you could provide some
other source or link that better explains how Dayton intended to prove the
existence of this aether.
Dayton Miller?s exps are discussed extensively in GWW. The Appendix has all
the Net links and book references you need.
Philip.
From 1902 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1902> to 1933
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933> Miller performed experiments producing
more accurate measurements. This work was published as a positive result for
the existence of an aether drift. However, the effect Miller saw was tiny.
In order for it to detect aether, the properties of aether drag would have
to be more pronounced.
Ignores the dependency on altitude and shielding and the refractive index of
the test gas.
Furthermore, the measurement was statistically far from any other
measurements being carried on at the time, fringe shifts of about 0.01 were
being observed in many experiments, while Miller's 0.08 was not duplicated
anywhere else -- including Miller's own 1904 experiments with Morley, which
showed a drift of only 0.015.
The measurements are perfectly consistent with a fringe difference of
zero -- the null result that every other experiment was recording.
The technical name for this is: Throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Einstein was interested in this aether drift theory and acknowledged that a
positive result for the existence of aether would invalidate the theory of
special relativity, but commented that altitudal
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude> influences and temperatures
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature> may have provided sources of
error in the findings.
The aether strength increases with altitude, an important discovery ? not a
?source of error?, Albert
Miller commented:
"The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my
results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature
differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting
this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature."
During the 1920s a number of experiments, both interferometry based, as in
Miller's experiment, and others using entirely different techniques, were
conducted and these returned a null result
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_result> as well. Even at the time,
Miller's work was increasingly considered to be a statistical anomaly, an
opinion which remains true today [1]
<http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238> , given an ever growing body of
negative results.
Shankland analysis
In 1955 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955> , Robert S. Shankland
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Shankland> , S. W. McCuskey, F. C.
Leone, and G. Kuerti performed a re-analysis of Miller's results. Shankland,
who led the report, noted that the "signal" that Miller observed in 1933 is
actually composed of points that are an average of several hundred
measurements each, and the magnitude of the signal is more than 10 times
smaller than the resolution with which the measurements were recorded.
Miller's extraction of a single value for the measurement is statistically
impossible, the data is too variable to say "this" number is any better than
"that" -- the data, from Shankland's position, supports a null result as
equally as Miller's positive.
Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was partly due to
statistical fluctuations and partly due to local temperature conditions and,
also, suggested that the results of Miller were due to a systematic error
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_error> rather than an observed
existence of aether. In particular he felt that Miller did not take enough
care in guarding against thermal gradients in the room where the experiment
took place, as, unlike most interferometry experiments, Miller conducted his
in a room where the apparatus was deliberately left open to the elements to
some degree.
In Shankland's analysis, no statistically significant signal for the
existence of aether was found. Shankland concluded that Miller's observed
signal was partly due to error rather than an observed existence of aether
holding radiant energy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy> . Thus,
a large, but indefinite, number of mainstream scientists today hold the
conviction that any signal that Miller observed was the result of the
experimenter effect <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter_effect> ,
which was a common source of systematic error before modern experimental
techniques were developed (ed, Miller did publish an early textbook on
experimental <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment> techniques
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method> ; cf., Ginn & Company,
1903).
You need to dig deeper, Phil. Shankland was Einstein?s lapdog(as was AS
Eddington). After Milller?s death Shankland destroyed all of Dayton?s lab
notes over the decades. He destroyed Miller?s precious legacy - proof that
would contradict the relativists. The Shankland report is one of the most
subjective and biased scientific papers ever written.
References: For Paul and Philip - http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm All
others - GWW CD: Ps 379ff
William Broad and Nicholas Wade, reporters who wrote Betrayers of the Truth:
Fraud in Science (1983), have stated that scientists should have reviewed
Miller's research more seriously at the time, and that their refusal to do
so is evidence of incompetence and unprofessional conduct. Robert Crease
<http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/rcrease.html> argues that it
would have been "irrational and unscientific" to suspend Einstein's theory
because of a contrary experiment. In Crease's opinion, this would allow some
antiscientific ideologues (eg., some Soviet scientists) to stop progress
through falsification. [2] <http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2>
Howzat for a manufactured excuse to suppress dissent!
Modern precision experiments have continually verified the results brought
into question by Miller, discounting his repeated attempts. [3]
<http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/> [4]
<http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/research_kt.htm> [5]
<http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J03/transparencies/5_thursday/1_morning/peters.pdf>
[6]
<http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2001/L%E4mmerzahl-OPTIS-2
001.pdf> [7] <http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238>
Baby & bathwater again.
Robert B
Other related posts:
