R. Sungenis: Again, if you were a disciple of Shankland
Such remarks have no place in a serious discussion - please cut
it out.
Yes they do Regner. Are you denying there can be complicity in
support among scientists. How many of them combined to deny
Flight? How many today are combining to support Global warming,
an obvious political interference using monetary pressures. I
don't know the morality of Shankland, but surely it may be
questioned just as much as was Galelleo. Lets look at the
evidence before just wiping or cutting it out.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Regner Trampedach <mailto:art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
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
<//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00140.html>,
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:
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 /21^st 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &
Finance <http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
