Dear Regner,

It may be true that there's not much money in astronomy, BUT I take issue that astronomers don't yield economic clout. Cornell's Harlow Shapley threatened Velikovsky's publisher with the loss of all their textbook business if they didn't kill "Worlds in Collision" and yank it off the presses. The shabby treatment accorded Velikovsky, up through and including his encounter with the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, is well-known and is a blot on academic freedom.  I'm no Velikovskian, by any stretch, but the treatment he received at Shapley's hands was brutal. Velikovsky, ever the gentleman, seemed a saint in comparison to his fuming interlocutors. 

Further to this, perhaps you could explain why Dr. Halton Arp was thrown off the Palomar telescope? At the time, he was the world's expert in the use of that amazing instrument, recent recipient of the Humboldt Senior Scientist prize, etc.  Or was his challenge of the red shift question regarding quasars simply unacceptable and thus the hammer was lowered on this scientist for doing "the wrong research" (viz., research that stood in opposition to the cosmogonies entrenched in the textbooks)? Unless you discount Dr. Arp's eyewitness account and that of his associates, there really isn't any dispute as to what happened here.

You speak of the passions of astronomers in your post.  There were passions aplenty exhibited in the above two examples -- and those passions didn't reflect well on the astronomers involved, dear Regner.   In other words, let's not over-generalize in favor of astronomers.  The exceptions are stark and ugly and stand out as warnings to others to watch their step. I could multiply further examples but these two are blatant.

Regards, 

Martin Selbrede

On May 1, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Regner Trampedach wrote:

What R. Sungenis wrote, implied that anobody seriously considering
Shankland's paper, are disciples of his. I seriously consider that paper
in this discussion and I see no reason not to - and I don't do it blindly!
  My main point is still, that a number of people on the geocentric side
of this forum might want to consider how they are perceived.
  I know that conflicts of interest are a sizeable problem in, e.g., medical
research, but I haven't really encountered it here in astronomy. The reason
might, of course, be my naiivity, but on the other hand there is far less
money in astronomy than in medical research. Also, all the astronomers I
know, including myself, could do far better (financially) outside astronomy
with the skills we have. I can safely say that most astronomers don't do it
for the money - we do it for our passion for finding out more about this
fantastic nature we inhabit.
  I just went to an Aussie brew-pub last night, but I didn't do any
posting after that.

    - Regner


philip madsen wrote:

Reply to Regners concerns.

 

"and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or liars
or plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
forum, either in person or through being a scientist." Regner

 

Regner I can easily see you take things too personally when they are not directed at you..  If I infer that Shankland is a con-man, this does not mean that I think you are. Indeed if I infer that 50% of employed scientists, put money and income and career first above truth, (my own brother admitted to me that he was one of these) this does not mean I include you.

 

I have already once specifically mentioned this before..lost somewhere in the maze.  

 

You also said, "and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or liars
or plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
forum, either in person or through being a scientist. " 

 

On my side ?  I'm a loner here.. well nearly . I think there are two Catholics left lol. But I get your drift, Geocentrism  v Establishment.

 

Well I have every reason to do so. Call anyone dogmatic or liars
or plain stupid ,on my side  and have done so without actually naming any individuals as I am not able to judge the conscience of any man including yourself..  Niether am I able to assess any evidence of individual persons moral position. However I am absolutely certain that the evidence over history does support my contention that a great many people whether Scientists or Preachers have a vested interest in being either liars or stupid or even both. Piltdown Man is the earliest I remember. Marconi stole from Tesla. Nearly everybody stole from Tesla.

 

 I would be stupid if I did not believe that. Whether you are one such as these, is your own call according to your own conscience. I hope I have always shown that I would never accuse you, and could never accuse anyone.  I can and do accuse the Pope of doing evil, but I cannot accuse him of being evil.

 

I did so only once to my own brother , when I accused him of denying a basic scientific truth and not publically admitting it, as regards the OZONE hoax as it involved refrigerants. We both had the same basic training. . He said "Its a good lie. I will lie for a good cause.." He had no God you see.

 

"And that cause is no doubt your carreer, and the BIG Salary you get. Why is it a good lie?"

 

"It makes people conscious of the environment "  he grinned.. 

 

I stand by my original contention..  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  Especially the very rich and powerful piper. Only a young rebel angry non religious Irish man like myself will buck the system on truth and take the penalty. I had to walk out on the British Blue Streak  project simply because it was launching in the wrong direction, and the head Scientis Director knew it..  He said to me, acknowledging the error..." I like my money coming in regularly... If you don't , then rest assured you will be leaving , not me.. "" 

 

I find it disconcerting that you seem to infer that science unlike other professions is above reproach, and you take it personally when we say otherwise. Take this example.

 

You say,

 That you and R. Sungenis implies that we follow the man at the
expense of the evidence is offensive and I frankly find it down-right
childish.

 

I do wish you would have given evidence of where we had said this anywhere, especially with respect to yourself.

 

I note that you used "we", as in  "implies that we follow the man"    If you personally do not follow the man , then why take it apon yourself to defend the profession as though it was directed at you personally..  That could be called childish, but I prefer illogical.

 

I was surprised to get your post , perhaps you were having a happy hour.. 

 

As I am now. You need to spend more time down in Aussie in the local pub.. 

 

 Cheers Philip. . 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Regner Trampedach

To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:25 AM

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

Philip, I have asked in the past for a minimum of respect and in the
past you have actually agreed to that.
In the sciences we follow the evidence, not whoever suggests a
theory. At the front of science there are many unsettled issues
and it is not clear where the cards will fall - you'll have scientists
in various "camps" - but when the issue is settled by decisive
observations/experiments - that's it. There is no worshiping of 
anyone and there is no faith-based following.
  That you and R. Sungenis implies that we follow the man at the
expense of the evidence is offensive and I frankly find it down-right
childish. We are here to find the truth - lets not decide on the
outcome until it's there. I am spending a fair amount of time open-
mindedly investigating the various claims brought up by this forum
 - and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or liars
or plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
forum, either in person or through being a scientist. 
  And more to the point; It has been my experience through life that
people who resort to that kind of accusations are rather insecure. 
I am not saying that you or R. Sungenis are, but maybe you want to
think about how you are perceived.
  Can we please keep this discussion civil and keep to the science?

      Regner



philip madsen wrote:

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

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
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:

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.

---

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

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date: 30/04/2008 6:10 PM