Show me any experiment proving Aether

Please show me any experiments to prove the existence of Aether.

I doubt anyone will actually give an experiment that directly proves aether

I don't think that Aether is currently "provable", just like gravity and string theory are not provable.  They are still theories, therefore, not proven to be true. 

I don't think that Aether is currently "provable", just like gravity and string theory are not provable.  They are still theories, therefore, not proven to be true.

Yet i hear you say "There are as many things proving aether as there are gravity" Well my friend, Gravity has been conducted with tonnes of experiments, so You can't go out and say that no experiments exist, you are basically avoiding the entire question. gg

Hafele-Keating, the LIGO...
What's the point? You've already demonstrated a refusal to listen. You ignore evidence when given and then demand we repeat the exact same thing, and you consistently refuse to say what the problem actually is.

Yet i hear you say "There are as many things proving aether as there are gravity"

No, I believe I said there was as much evidence for Aether theory as there is for Gravity theory.  I did not say Aether has been proven, just as you can not claim that Gravity has been proven.

Well my friend, Gravity has been conducted with tonnes of experiments, so You can't go out and say that no experiments exist, you are basically avoiding the entire question. gg

I did not say there have not been any experiments conducted for Gravity theory.  Where did you get that idea from?  I sure wish you would quit putting words in my mouth.  I would not want for anyone to mistakenly take me for a roundy or something. 

ETHER DRIFT RESULTS: CONFIRMATION OF DAYTON MILLER'S RESULTS/EXISTENCE OF DYNAMIC ETHER

Yuri Galaev, Ph.D.; Senior research officer of the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)

The most significant development since Miller has been the
experiments of Yuri Galaev of the Institute of Radiophysics and
Electronics in the Ukraine. Galaev made independent measure-
ments of ether-drift using radiofrequency and optical wave
bands. His research not only "confirmed Miller's results down
to the details"but also allowed computation of the increase of
ether-drift with altitude above the Earth's surface (calculated to
be 8.6 m/sec per meter of altitude).

http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf (Dr. James DeMeo's superb presentation of ether drift results)


Now, the English translations of Dr. Yuri Galaev's groundbreaking work and most precise confirmation of the existence of dynamic ether (experiments carried out over the course of several years). Let us remember that, in what follows, it is the ether itself which flows above the flat surface of the earth and not the other way around... that is, both Miller and Galaev measured precisely the velocity and physical qualities of ether as it travels/propagates above the flat earth.


http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/galaev/galaev-2.pdf

journal pgs 207-224

pg 210 interferometer description
pg 220 ether drift velocity measurements/data

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


The positive results of three experiments [1-3], [7- 9], [10] give the basis to consider the effects detected in these experiments, as medium movement developments, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.

Such medium was called as the ether [11] at the times of Maxwell, Michelson and earlier. The conclusion was made in the works [1-3], that the measurement results within millimeter radio waves band can be considered as the experimental hypothesis confirmation of the material medium existence in nature such as the ether. Further discussions of the experiment results [1-3] have shown the expediency of additional experimental analysis of the ether drift problem in an optical wave band.


Thus, in the work, the hypothesis experimental verification about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation, in the optical wave band has been performed. The estimation of the ether kinematic viscosity value has been performed. The first order optical method for the ether drift velocity and the ether kinematic viscosity measuring has been proposed and realized.

The method action is based on the development regularities of viscous liquid or gas streams in the directing systems. The significant measurement results have been obtained statistically. The development of the ether drift required effects has been shown. The measured value of the ether kinematic viscosity on the value order has coincided with its calculated value.

The velocity of optical wave propagation depends on the radiation direction and increases with height growth above the Earth's surface. The velocity of optical wave propagation changes its value with a period per one stellar day. The detected effects can be explained by the following:
 
optical wave propagation medium available regarding to the Earth's movement;
 
optical wave propagation medium has the viscosity, i.e. the feature proper to material mediums composed of separate particles;

the medium stream of optical wave propagation has got a space (galactic) origin.

The work results comparison to the experiment results, executed earlier in order of the hypothesis verification about the existence of such material medium as the ether in nature, has been performed. The comparison results have shown the reproduced nature of the ether drift effect measurements in various experiments performed in different geographic requirements with different measurement methods application. The work results can be considered as experimental hypothesis confirmation about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.

The following model statements are used at measuring method development [4-6]: the ether is a material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation; the ether has properties of viscous gas; the metals have major etherdynamic resistance. The imagination of the hydroaerodynamic (etherdynamic) effect existence is accepted as the initial position. The method of the first order based on known regularities of viscous gas movement in tubes [27-28] has been proposed and realized within the optical electromagnetic waves band in the work for measuring of the ether drift velocity and ether kinematic viscosity.


http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/galaev/galaev-1.pdf

journal pgs 211-225

ETHERAL WIND IN EXPERIENCE OF MILLIMETRIC RADIOWAVES PROPAGATION Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


The ethereal wind speed value, measured in a radio frequency band at the work, is close to the ethereal wind speeds values, measured in electromagnetic waves optical range in the experiments of Miller [5, 6], Michelson, Peas, Pearson [11]. Such comparison results can be considered as mutual confirmation of the research results veracity, the experiment [5, 6] and the experiment [11].

The executed analysis has shown, that this work results can be explained by radiowaves propagation phenomenon in a space parentage driving medium with a gradiant layer speed in this medium ow near the Earth's surface. The gradiant layer available testifies that this medium has the viscosity -- the property intrinsic material media, i.e. media consisting of separate particles. Thus, the executed experiment results agree with the initial hypothesis positions about the Aether material medium existence in the nature.


Dr. Maurice Allais' analysis of the Dayton Miller ether-drift experiments:

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm


The most striking effect upon living matter of such ether waves (both laevorotatory and dextrorotatory) is the biohomochirality phenomenon, completely unexplained by modern science (RE/UA), as documented here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624


Here is another misconception:

With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

He did not realize that ether = friction, so therefore, the very equations of motion, thought to be Hamiltonian, must be modified to include the frictional effect of ether/aether upon the celestial bodies...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

This is a link to the Michelson Morley experiment, which, has told even the brightest minds of science (Stephen hawking) That ether is dis-proven.

You may also look into Sir olive lodge, who was said to run tests about ether.

Some people can get ether and dark matter, energy and quantum foam mixed up, as the are all theories, but all theories will one day be proven or dis-proven.

The Michelson–Morley experiment failed to take into consideration Relativist physics.  It assumed Newtonian physics.  You can't really cite this as evidence when the whole experiment was destined to fail due to ignorance in the first place. 

These are supposed to be the upper forums where we engage in serious discussions.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)

None of this actually proves ether is real. Nothing will. Until we see actualy, physical proof We cannot say you are right.

None of that shit made sense to me, but I seem to be forgetting something... wait..

Einsteins theory of relativity is base on time and space and how.. wait no... GRAVITY effects it.

So on one stage your theory "proves" one thing and disproves everything else.

Go home and take kindergarten murks.

None of this actually proves ether is real. Nothing will. Until we see actualy, physical proof We cannot say you are right.

None of that shit made sense to me, but I seem to be forgetting something... wait..

Einsteins theory of relativity is base on time and space and how.. wait no... GRAVITY effects it.

So on one stage your theory "proves" one thing and disproves everything else.

Go home and take kindergarten murks.

I don't think you even know what "proves" means.  I know you are not a very scientific person, but no theory has been proven, including all of the BS theories that your scientists come up with daily.  Why do you hold us to a different standard? 

But it does prove the existence of ether immediately and precisely: the experiments carried out by Dr. Yuri Galaev are flawless.

Don't forget, there is no such thing as the UA accelerator, and certainly no such thing as the theory of relativity.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.




http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html



The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 11, 2015, 03:05:45 AM

None of this actually proves ether is real. Nothing will. Until we see actualy, physical proof We cannot say you are right.

None of that shit made sense to me, but I seem to be forgetting something... wait..

Einsteins theory of relativity is base on time and space and how.. wait no... GRAVITY effects it.

So on one stage your theory "proves" one thing and disproves everything else.

Go home and take kindergarten murks.

I don't think you even know what "proves" means.  I know you are not a very scientific person, but no theory has been proven, including all of the BS theories that your scientists come up with daily.  Why do you hold us to a different standard?

Ok, maybe you misunderstood me. I never said anything about any theories being proven, except the "proves" part. This post was basically saying that relying on that theory contradicts half of your model. Now I must be going to bed, So Ill keep debating tommorow.

Quote from: jroa on December 11, 2015, 03:11:32 AM

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 11, 2015, 03:05:45 AM

None of this actually proves ether is real. Nothing will. Until we see actualy, physical proof We cannot say you are right.

None of that shit made sense to me, but I seem to be forgetting something... wait..

Einsteins theory of relativity is base on time and space and how.. wait no... GRAVITY effects it.

So on one stage your theory "proves" one thing and disproves everything else.

Go home and take kindergarten murks.

I don't think you even know what "proves" means.  I know you are not a very scientific person, but no theory has been proven, including all of the BS theories that your scientists come up with daily.  Why do you hold us to a different standard?

Ok, maybe you misunderstood me. I never said anything about any theories being proven, except the "proves" part. This post was basically saying that relying on that theory contradicts half of your model. Now I must be going to bed, So Ill keep debating tommorow.

Nothing about Relativity contradicts FET.  In fact, it has been thought by many individuals that Einstein was actually a closet FE'er. 

None of this actually proves ether is real. Nothing will. Until we see actualy, physical proof We cannot say you are right.

What is it you think scientific proof is? In my book it's just a large amount of evidence: evidence being when observations match what is predicted by a theory.
if you disagree with this definition, share why. If you agree, please share why the proof of aether is not enough.

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 11, 2015, 03:05:45 AM

None of this actually proves ether is real. Nothing will. Until we see actualy, physical proof We cannot say you are right.

What is it you think scientific proof is? In my book it's just a large amount of evidence: evidence being when observations match what is predicted by a theory.
if you disagree with this definition, share why. If you agree, please share why the proof of aether is not enough.

As always, since you don't know where anyone/anything is on the DEF model, how can you specify what is observed? Then how can you say the observations match your predictions? How is there a "large amount of evidence"? But continue to ignore me, that is fine.

Okay, time to dig this up (sorry for that, sandokhan referenced it in another thread and I do not want to derail that one).

Okay, sandokhan, your line of reasoning is
"riemann did not intend his methods to be used that way"
"tesla thinks something different"
"someone says math should not be used that way"
"einstein himself had some doubts"
"einstein built his theory on the works of other people"


This is no refutation of a theory.

You claim, and I quote:

However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity

Please present alternatives for:

- The precession of Mercury's orbit
- The gravitational redshift of light
- The gravitational deflection of light
- Measurements taken by gravitational lensing, which are in agreement with many other, independent measurements
- Time-shifts measured by atomic clocks flying around the earth
- The working principles of GPS satellites

If you want me to elaborate on any of these points just tell me.


Side-notes: The statement that a n-dimensional space has to be embedded in a (n+1)-dimensional space to be curved is bogus. Newtons doubts about gravity (that it is a instantaneous far-action) were what motivated einstein to develop his theory.
And, most importantly: There are alternative Theories being researched. There is no suppression by the scientific journals. Even at my university people are working on the MOND-theory, an alternative theory to Einsteins.

Each and every one of your inquiries has been addressed a long time ago in my messages, please look for them.

Especially gravitational lensing, the Hafele-Keating failed experiment and much more.

The Allais effect pulverizes each and every one of your assumptions.

How was lensing refuted? Why did the Hafele-Keating experiment fail?

Please show me any experiments to prove the existence of Aether.

No experiment can prove the existence of something like aether. You can only show that the observations are consistent or inconsistent with an aether model. The experiments we have, such as Sagnac and Michelson Morley show that aether doesn't exist, but either alone can be considered consistent with the aether hypothesis.

As for you Sandy, you are yet to refute, address or prove a thing, so far all you have done is copied and pasted or linked to piles of crap, which the vast majority of has likely already been refuted by others.
Are you ever planning on trying to make an argument yourself?

The Sagnac effect takes care of all the problems.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


The Sagnac effect proves the existence of ether.

It also proves geocentrism.

The experiment shows a certain substance, the ether, to be in movement against the surface of the Earth.

Heliocentrists will state that there are two choices:

(a) a rotating Earth in a fixed ether, or

(b) a rotating ether above the surface of a fixed Earth


The reason that (a) must be excluded is the missing orbital Sagnac effect: if one claims that the Earth is rotating in a fixed ether, then in order to account for the four seasons, one must also say that the Earth is also revolving around the sun.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


The Sagnac effect is a direct proof not only of the existence of ether, but also of the fact that the Earth is stationary.

Sandy, we have been over this so many times it isn't funny.
The Sagnac effect is entirely consistent with relativity.
It doesn't prove aether, it is entirely consistent with an aether free model.

There is no missing orbital Sagnac effect.

All you can do is post the same refuted crap.

You have totally lost it jackblack.

More cognitive dissonance, right?

The Sagnac effect takes care of all the problems.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.



DO YOU READ ENGLISH jackblack?

Do you have problems comprehending scientific references?

Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


The Sagnac effect is HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES or even BILLIONS OF TIMES larger than STR.

Please get your act together!

How did this adress any of my points, sandokhan? You did not explain anything.

It doesn't prove aether, it is entirely consistent with an aether free model.

There is no missing orbital Sagnac effect.

Since STR is useless to explain the Sagnac effect, the aether is the only other alternative left.

Especially in the view of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.




http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.



http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39644&sid=380ab2ccf12f0e84dc604ec3feeed59e#p39644

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37771#p37771



THE SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH LARGER THAN STR.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.



Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites, and at the same time the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon the clocks is missing also, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.

You have totally lost it jackblack.

More cognitive dissonance, right?

No. I haven't.
Repeating the same refuted crap again wont make it true.
You are yet to do a full, honest derivation of the Sagnac effect showing it contradicts special relativity.

However, as you can link any inertial reference frame to any other, if the result is true in one inertial reference frame, then it must be true in any other frame. That is the basis of relativity. As such, the normal result predicted in an inertial reference frame matching the observed sagnac effect shows it is entirely consistent with relativity.

Yes, the Sagnac effect is larger than a purely relativistic effect, because it isn't a relativistic effect.

No, even if you refute relativity, it doesn't make aether true. It can be explained quite fine without either.

Question: Can you explain these phenomena using aether and not GRT?

Sandokhan: Gnagnagna! The missing orbital sagnac effect disproves GRT!

You should go into politics.

What pill did you use to partially cure your cognitive dissonance in the period of just some minutes?

Yes, the Sagnac effect is larger than a purely relativistic effect

My advice: please take some more medicine.

THE SAGNAC EFFECT IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES OR EVEN BILLIONS OF TIMES LARGER THAN STR.

Do you understand these facts?


You are yet to do a full, honest derivation of the Sagnac effect showing it contradicts special relativity.

But it has already been done plenty of times.

Here is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, Dr. A.G. Kelly proving that the SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than STR:

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.

None other than E.G. Post, one of the greatest experts on the Sagnac, says the very same thing:

Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


No, even if you refute relativity, it doesn't make aether true.

But it does: you are forgetting the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.

Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites, and at the same time the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon the clocks is missing also, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


You don't stand a chance with me here, jack black..

Sandy, I am yet to go against what I have said previously.

The Sagnac effect being larger than a purely relativistic effect doesn't mean it contradicts relativity. It means relativity isn't the cause.

The observed Sagnac effect is 100% consistent with relativity.
Do you understand that fact?

No, the Sagnac effect has not been derived using relativity and shown to not match.

I want you to do it yourself to show you actually understand it rather than just parrot some crap you think supports you.
You did it before and were completely wrong. I showed why and you just ignored it.

So do it yourself.


No. I'm not forgetting the Ruderford experiment.

A being wrong doesn't mean B is right. They could both be wrong.

I've already pointed out your BS about the orbital Sagnac effect.

You are the one that doesn't stand a chance, as all you seem to be capable of doing is spouting mountains of crap you copy from elsewhere. You seem to be completely incapable of forming a rational thought to defend your claims.