-----
Original Message -----
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
later. And let's start with R. Cahill's theory.
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
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
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"""""""""
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:
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 gradient factor
was removed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
