FRESNEL FORMULA HOAX II
Fresnel’s work on the wave theory was based on the hypothesis of a stationary or immobile ether.
What physical explanation does Fresnel offer for the value of the dragging coefficient?
It is only a part of this medium [the ether] which is carried along by our earth, namely that portion which constitutes the excess of its density over that of the surrounding ether. By analogy it would seem that, when only a part of the medium is displaced, the velocity of propagation of the waves can only be increased by the velocity of the center of gravity of the system (Fresnel 1818; translation from Schaffner 1972).
In a note later added to the letter, he admits that other hypotheses regarding the elasticity are equally possible, but adds:
But whatever the hypothesis one makes concerning the causes of the slowing of light when it passes through transparent bodies, one may always ... mentally substitute for the real medium of the prism, an elastic fluid with the same tension as the surrounding ether, and having a density such that the velocity of light is precisely the same in this fluid and in the prism, when they are supposed at rest; this equality must still continue to hold in these two media when carried along by the earth’s motion; these, then, are the bases upon which my calculation rests (Fresnel 1818b; translation from Schaffner 1972).
This is the first, but hardly the last time that we shall come upon a disturbing problem: the lack of uniqueness in explanations of Fresnel’s coefficient. It has been suggested, notably by Veltmann (1873),
that Fresnel first found the value of the coefficient that explained the anomalous experimental results, and then cooked up a theoretical explanation for this value.Mascart (1872): In any case, to be rigorous, it must be stated that Fizeau’s experiment
only verified that the dragging of the [light] waves by moving media is in agreement
with [Fresnel’s] formula (1) and that one can replace Fresnel’s hypothesis by any other hypothesis that will finally lead to the same formula, or a slightly different one.
Mascart (1893): The considerations that guided Fresnel are insufficient; the formula
to which he was led by a happy intuition only has an empirical character, which should be interpreted by theory.
(J. Stachel, Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University)
The fact that Michelson and Gale only measured/recorded the CORIOLIS FORCE EFFECT and not the SAGNAC EFFECT, means not only that the Earth is stationary, but also that this Coriolis force effect (which must involve rotation) is due to the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth.
Thus Fresnel's original assumption is totally wrong.
The explanation provided by Carl Ockert (see previous message) which also derives the Fresnel drag formula is thus shown to be correct: the ether is dynamic and not static.
"Lorentz’s achievement was to purify the message of Maxwell’s equations—to separate the signal from the noise. The signal: four equations that govern how electrical and magnetic fields respond to electric charge and its motion, plus one equation that specifies the force those fields exert on charge. The noise: everything else!"
Lorentz severely curtailed/censored the original form of Maxwell's equations: the twenty original equations were reduced to just four equations
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.pdfThe common Maxwell’s equations are valid only for systems at rest (i.e.: static systems, V = 0 ). The application of these equations to dynamic systems, where V ≠ 0 , (often termed “the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations”) is the basis for the erroneous theory of relativity.
Therefore, Lorentz' derivation of the Fresnel drag factor is erroneous since it is based on the modified Heaviside equations, and not on the original Maxwell equations written in quaternion form which explicitly included the aether factor.
On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous
Ether: The actual displacement was certainly less than the
twentieth part of this...It appears, from all that precedes,
reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between
the Earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite
small enough entirely to refute Fresnel’s explanation of
aberration, and that the velocity of the Earth with respect to the
ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital
velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.
A. Michelson/E. Morley, 1887
“If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong.”
Stated to Sir Herbert Samuel on the grounds of Government House, Jerusalem
(Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 207)
The 1887 experiment found fringe shifts that corresponded to about a 4 km/sec speed of ether
against the Earth, but since Michelson and Morley assumed the Earth was already moving at 30 km/sec around the sun, they reasoned that the experiment should have shown enough fringe shifting equating to a speed of at least 30 km/sec.
The 4 km/sec shows that at least something was present for which
they had to give an explanation, for vacuums in space do not give
resistances, especially on the order of 4 km/sec. In addition, since this
something is moving at a rate much less than 30 km/sec, they must
explain how this entity could cause such noticeable effects upon all
subsequent interferometer experiments if the Earth was not moving
through it. It would have been much easier for them if the experiment
had registered zero km/sec instead of 4, since the former figure would
have easily allowed them to claim that ether did not exist. In fact,
Einstein’s whole theory of Relativity is based on the supposition that
there is nothing in outer space, and thus the theory requires that there be
an interferometer result with absolutely no fringe shifting and a
corresponding speed of zero km/sec. If the Earth doesn’t move and yet
there is any fringe reading above zero, no matter how small, this should
immediately nullify Relativity theory.
Perhaps just as important concerning the Michelson-Morley
experiment was, even with this small evidence of ether movement, the
two scientists concluded that Fresnel’s “explanation of aberration” was
“refuted” by their 1887 interferometer experiment. We will recall that
Fresnel explained Arago’s stellar aberration results by postulating that it
was caused by glass mediums “dragging” ether against an immobile ether
that surrounded the glass. Interestingly enough, Michelson and Morley
had previously stated in 1886 that, after the repeat of Fizeau’s
experiment in 1884, they had, at that time, confirmed Fresnel’s formula
stating: “the result of this work is therefore that the result announced by
Fizeau is essentially correct: and that the luminiferous ether is entirely
unaffected by the motion of the matter which it permeates.” So we
have Michelson and Morley giving us two different stories, but the one
to which they adhere is the 1887 judgment showing that science had no
answer to Arago’s experiment and that the Earth’s 30 km/sec clip
through space was coming to a screeching halt unless somebody could
come up with an explanation.
(from Galileo Was Wrong)
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which
presupposes that the Earth moves…”
Albert Michelson
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity
through space might happen to have been nil…”
Arthur Eddington
The problem which now faced science was considerable. For
there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that
the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole
Copernican theory and was unthinkable.
Ronald W. Clark
“Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance
of science. But let us leave this question for the time being and accept
Copernicus’ point of view.”
Albert Einstein
'Enter Albert Einstein. To save the world from having to reconnect itself with the Middle Ages, Einstein set his mind to finding an explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment. Most people don’t realize, and even less would admit it, but Relativity was created for one main reason: so that mankind would not be forced to admit that Earth was standing still in space.'