## [geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:32:50 +1000

```Regner, before I read all this red stuff, is all the comment labelled Cahill
and SR from Cahill without any comment from yourself?  Some of it reads
contradictory as though he is challenging himself or another.

Sorry for my lack of comprehension. Its hard to separate his science from
allegory.

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
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

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

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
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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
```