The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk

  • 127 Replies
  • 5222 Views
*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 250
  • Weather Pegasus
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #120 on: April 21, 2019, 01:02:57 AM »
Though the sandokan could not explain to me in simple words how the gyrocompass works on flat land. Now I wave him a hoof. I here completely agree with him, since it is all his materials that show how this can work. Gyrocompass rotates the ethereal wind rushing above the stationary ground. If the ethereal wind goes above ground in the form of a dome, this fully explains the behavior of the gyrocompass. And let me try to refute the earth ball ...

Are you sure that the earth is not such?

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 250
  • Weather Pegasus
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #121 on: April 21, 2019, 12:37:48 PM »

Are you sure that the earth is not such?

*

sokarul

  • 15361
  • Discount Chemist
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #123 on: April 21, 2019, 02:59:37 PM »
Gyrocompass rotates the ethereal wind rushing above the stationary ground. If the ethereal wind goes above ground in the form of a dome, this fully explains the behavior of the gyrocompass. And let me try to refute the earth ball ...
The massive problem with that is that his magic aether has been disproven. So there is no ethereal wind to rotate the compass. It also doesn't rotate it as required to match observation.

*

rabinoz

  • 19895
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #124 on: April 21, 2019, 04:12:27 PM »
Gyrocompass rotates the ethereal wind rushing above the stationary ground. If the ethereal wind goes above ground in the form of a dome, this fully explains the behavior of the gyrocompass. And let me try to refute the earth ball ...
The massive problem with that is that his magic aether has been disproven. So there is no ethereal wind to rotate the compass. It also doesn't rotate it as required to match observation.
"The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk" to someone who believes the earth rotates and orbits the sun but
debunking "the Luminiferous Aether is" almost impossible when debating with any who insist that the earth is stationary. 

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15199
  • Quantum Ab Hoc
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #125 on: April 22, 2019, 12:28:13 PM »
Sandokhan has told me Relativity is easy to debunk and the Aether hypothesis is top notch and wins out, now it’s my turn. The luminiferous aether is easy to debunk, and with that, Sandokhans model dies down with it since it relies on this aether.

A basic experiment that geocentrists like to cite is the Michelson-Morley experiment, where the speed of light was compared in perpendicular directions and the result was negative. According to the Luminiferous aether hypothesis, the relative motion of matter through the aether should provide a directional change in the speed of light, so, with a rotating earth, it should match the daily rotation rate of the Earth. However, it didn’t, showing that according to the aether hypothesis, Earth is at rest in stationary aether (NOT rotating). It would also result in the orbit of the Earth around the sun if heliocentrism was correct, but no motion was detected. It then makes sense why geocentrists like this experiment so much and the aether.
From On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether (1887)
by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley:
“Let sa, fig. 1, be a ray of light which is partly reflected in ab, and partly transmitted in ac, being returned by the mirrors b and c, along ba and ca. ba is partly transmitted alongad,

and ca is partly reflected along ad. If then the paths ab and ac are equal, the two rays interfere along ad. Suppose now, the ether being at rest, that the whole apparatus moves in the direction sc, with the velocity of the earth in its orbit, the directions and distances traversed by the rays will be altered thus:— The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab, being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba/, (aba/ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca/, and is reflected at a/, making ca/e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba/ and ca/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a/, though the difference is of the second order; this does not affect the validity of the reasoning. Let it now be required to find the difference in the two paths aba/, and aca/.
Let V= velocity of light.
v= velocity of the earth in its orbit,
D=distance ab or ac, fig. 1.
T=time light occupies to pass from a to c.
T =time light occupies to return from c to a/, (fig. 2.)

Then . The whole time of going and coming is , and the distance traveled in this time is , neglecting terms of the fourth order. The length of the other path is evidently, or to the same degree of accuracy, . The difference is therefore . If now the whole apparatus be turned through 90°, the difference will be in the opposite direction, hence the displacement of the interference fringes should be . Considering only the velocity of the earth in its orbit, this would be .  If, as was the case in the first experiment, , the displacement to be expected would be 0.04 of the distance between the interference fringes.”
More here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

A basic search on Wikipedia reveals the results:
“The expectation was that the effect would be graphable as a sine wave with two peaks and two troughs per rotation of the device. This result could have been expected because during each full rotation, each arm would be parallel to the wind twice (facing into and away from the wind giving identical readings) and perpendicular to the wind twice. Additionally, due to the Earth's rotation, the wind would be expected to show periodic changes in direction and magnitude during the course of a sidereal day.
Because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun, the measured data were also expected to show annual variations.
After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history.[A 13] Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement (Fig. 7), but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth."[1] Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.[A 1] For instance, Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:[A 14]
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 ”
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29

The Michelson Morley failed to detect the rotation speed of the Earth that was assumed.

However, a variation of the Michelson Morley experiment done with a large ring interferometer to detect the sagnac effect of Earth’s rotation was done, called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.
The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was basically a larger version of Michelson-Morley; its perimeter was 1.9 kilometers. This was large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. To make a simplification of how this works, imagine you have Earth, and an aether wind uniformly moving across it. The longitudinal lines north of the equator would be smaller than the equator itself, giving a difference in aether speed across earth since the aether wind crosses earth at the shorter north distance in the same time as the longer equator distance. So, a large ring interferometer would detect a fringe shift with a rotating Earth or equivalent aether wind.

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson ring interferometer:




The Fringe displacement expected from the Michelson-Gale Experiment was represented by a simple equation:



= Fringe displacement
A= Area in km^2
= latitude
c= speed of light
w= angular velocity of Earth
= Wavelength used

The experiment accurately detected the supposed angular velocity of the Earth. With the Sagnac effect, which the aether hypothesis was consistent with, revealed a rotating Earth. This implies one of two things with the assumption of the luminiferous aether:
1.   The Earth is rotating once per 24 hours in stationary aether.
2.   The aether is rotating around the Earth once per 24 hours, basically an equivalent aether wind.
Both of these are basically the aether and earth moving relative to one another at once per day as predicted by a daily rotation of either the stars dragging it across or the rotation of Earth.

But wait a minute, the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect this rotation or aether wind, the results are inconsistent, the aether revealed an earth at rest in stationary aether (or nearly stationary) while also matching rotation. This implies a failure of the luminiferous aether hypothesis to be consistent with both the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, and therefore kills the aether, it simply doesn’t work.
“In 1924 Michelson and Gale used in Chicago a new fix interferometer. Both paths have exactly the same length. But one of E-W arm (DE in the sketch) is more than 300 meters located in the North of the other arm, which is by the way closer to the equator. The tangential speed of the Earth is not the same for both arms.
lac being the Chicago latitude, the result is a difference between the two duration of : t2 - t1 = (4 p L l sin lac)/(24 c2). Michelson and Gale measured an interference fringe displacement of 0,230 ± 0,005 fringe width (they performed 269 measurements) the theoretical displacement is 0,236. This is exactly the same experiment than Sagnac; It shows the rotation of the Earth.”
- http://editionsassailly.com/books/space.htm

Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment original papers:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Modern optical resonator experiments have confirmed that there is no aether wind to the 10^-17 level:
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011

Relativity explains both of these experiments just fine, there is no aether wind in which the speed of light varies through with motion and the sagnac effect is consistent with relativity as there is no inertial frame in which the device may be at rest but rather an accelerating non-inertial rotating frame, explaining both the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.

Sandokhan, abandon your failed luminiferous aether hypothesis incorporated in your model and update your physics with Special and General Relativity. There is no luminiferous aether, it is best explained as a 4D space-time continuum (prefer GR but Minkowski space can work well with Special Relativity) with frames of reference defining motion along with inertia.

If you are going to create a flat earth model, do it without this luminiferous aether, it was falsified by having contradictory results with these two experiments.
I don't know of models that use luminferous aether, however it should be noted that the Michelson-Morely experiment actually resulted in a null result, which says nothing of whether it is true or not.

It is either disingenuous or flat out wrong to claim it disproves aether.
[John Davis is a DANGEROUS TERRORIST who MAKES US LOOK BAD

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15199
  • Quantum Ab Hoc
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #126 on: April 22, 2019, 12:31:05 PM »
IIRC, MGP also produced inconsistent results.
[John Davis is a DANGEROUS TERRORIST who MAKES US LOOK BAD

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #127 on: April 22, 2019, 02:16:40 PM »
MM alone doesn't disprove it.
MM along with stellar aberration (and plenty of other experiments) provide extremely strong evidence that aether isn't real as they require Earth to be moving and stationary w.r.t. the aether.
Not to mention the mythical properties required of the aether.

I wasn't aware of inconsistent results from MGP, unless you mean inconsistent with the aether vs ballistic models of light?