[geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
- From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:40:13 EDT
In a message dated 4/30/2008 9:52:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Me in green. - Regner
_Sungenis@xxxxxxxx (mailto:Sungenis@xxxxxxx) wrote:
Regner,
The issues about Cahill's ether that you brought up for discussion have been
forwarded to Dr. Bennett for his comments, since he deals with Cahill in his
part of the book.
I am looking forward to his response.
As for your comments in red below, I have responded with my own comments in
blue.
Robert Sungenis
_______________
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.
Sorry, but your proclamation of 'facts' is a bit premature.
RS2: If you think they are premature, then show us any qualified study that
did not find at least some resistance to the velocity of light in an
interferometer. As such, you can call the resistance anything you wish. I call
it ether,
because I don't believe *nothingness* impedes the speed of light, just like I
don't believe that nothingness can shorten the length of the interferometer
arm. Of the two, I think that a motionless Earth against a rotating universe is
a better explanation for the slight fringe shifting than saying matter
shrinks,
The "matter shrinks" part, is exactly my objection to Cahill's theory...
RS3: Cahill is not the weal or woe of this issue. Theories on either Ether or
Relativity are a dime a dozen. The point remains that, you have two ways to
explain the slight fringe shifting: (a) the Earth doesn't rotate or revolve but
the universe rotates around the Earth, or (b) change the whole face of
physics and say that length shortens, time dilates and mass increases. All we
are
asking, Regner, is that the science community stop insisting that (b) is the
ONLY answer, and that our textbooks start admitting that (a) is just as viable,
if not more so, than (b), according to Occam's razor.
time dilates and mass increases. Call me pigheaded if you wish, but I think
Occam is on my side, not yours.
That you proclaim as a fact, that "an ether drift was detected", precludes
any further discussion of the subject. I have seen nothing so far, to convince
me of that "fact" and yet I have not declared it wrong - I'm leaving open both
possibilities. I am going to investigate yours and Dr. Bennett's
claim that Miller carried out temperature insensitive experiments - and I
will reserve judgment till then. I believe that to be the open-minded approach.
RS3: Wonderful. Then we'll compare notes on the Miller issue when you've
completed your study. Suffice it to say, however, that your preliminary
conclusion
on Miller was made without the benefit of this needed research.
As for ether, I'm not insisting you believe in ether. I said you can call the
resistance measured in all the interferometer experiments anything you want.
Just recognize that the experimental evidence shows that it really exists.
The resistance was deemed "null" by the experimenters because each of them
assumed the Earth was revolving around the sun. But the results certainly are
not close to null if the Earth is NOT revolving around the sun.
In either case, however, you need to put a name on the resistance, whether
the resistance is big or small or somewhere in between. The resistance is
verified not only in Michelson-Morley, Miller, et al, but also in the fact that
GPS
has to program its computers with the Sagnac effect -- the 1913 experiment
that measured the same resistance in its interferometer as M/M and Miller.
Again, if you want to believe SR is the answer, that's your privilege. All we
are asking is that you teach your students that another viable answer is that
the resistance is caused by a real substance that is ponderable, not
unponderable, and the corollary to that, of course, is that the Earth isn't
moving. Is
that too much to ask for an opened minded scientist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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'.
RS2: It is a scientific fact that if you believe in heliocentrism, then one
of the ways you can determine the direction and speed of the sun is by
triangulating against the earth's motion around the sun. That's what Miller
stated as
a scientific fact. But the other scientific fact that he forgot to mention was
that he was assuming as a scientific fact that the earth revolved around the
sun, but without scientific proof. Hence, it is thus a scientific fact that he
cannot determine the speed and direction of the sun toward Draco by
triangulating it against the earth, at least not to the discrediting of the
other
plausible alternative, namely, that the earth doesn't move and therefore
triangulation is not applicable in all cases.
I apologize for that one. I misunderstood the triangulation procedure.
Your statement is reasonable, but has it's own problems that I'll come back
to when we have cleared up the Cahill theory.
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 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.
Such remarks have no place in a serious discussion - please cut it out.
RS2: I guess you're right. The secret motivations of men who crave the
limelight with Einstein's fame and fortune shouldn't be a part of this
discussion.
We should just stick with the scientific facts. That being the case, it is a
fact that Shankland presented to Einstein only Miller's temperature-effected
results, and ignored the ones in which Miller eliminated the temperature
effects.
If you would like to read up on this history, Regner, I'll be glad to foward
the section from Galileo Was Wrong that covers it.
Thanks. Please ignore my inclusion of your name in _my response _
(//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00225.html) to
_Philip's post.
_ (//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00191.html)
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Other related posts:
