The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk

  • 127 Replies
  • 5210 Views
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2017, 01:19:09 AM »
Debunking luminiferous aether just leads to null hypotheses. Seems true to me then.
What seems true?
The null hypothesis or aether?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2017, 01:31:13 AM »
They are called massive walls of irrelevant garbage, aka spam.

Dr. Paul Biefeld was a classmate of A. Einstein.

 “Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."

And Einstein valued Dr. Dayton Miller's work:

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

Dr. Bruce DePalma was a graduate of MIT and Harvard.

Dr. Maurice Allais was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

The best bibliographical references which do prove the existence of ether drift.


Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2017, 01:48:21 AM »
They are called massive walls of irrelevant garbage, aka spam.

Dr. Paul Biefeld was a classmate of A. Einstein.
And here you go with more spam.

Quit with the bullshit and address the OP and what people have said.

If you are incapable of doing so just shut up.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2017, 02:02:37 AM »
altspace, you sound very desperate.

When are you going to learn that you don't stand a chance with me here?

By far, the best ether drift experiment done over the past 150 years was performed by Dr. Yuri Galaev.

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)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev2.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

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://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.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].


Your lack of experience in ether drift theory is made evident by the fact that you do not understand the nature of the experiments listed by you earlier.

Dr. Dayton Miller specified quite clearly:


"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesirable
while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".

As I told you, you are here to learn.

Make sure you read and understand why the experiments listed by you done by Kennedy, Stahel and Illingworth are useless, as they were performed in METALLIC CHAMBERS:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212

While Kennedy, Illingworth, Stahel and Joos had no idea about the Atsukovsky effect, the authors of the other light isotropy experiments performed recently in time have no excuse.

There is also another aspect worth noticing when using vacuum chamber ether drift experiments.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Moreover, the Piccard-Stahel experiments did detect ether drift.

Lynch writes: “…a series of experiments of Professor Piccard of Brussels which at first failed to show, even at the summit of the Rigi, at over six thousand feet of altitude, an ether wind of more than one and a half kilometers a second. Experiments by balloon gave a very different result, the ether wind at eight thousand feet being nine kilometers a second” (The Case Against Einstein, p. 45). Galaev reports that the results were 7 km/sec and that the team concluded that “We cannot discuss Miller’s result on the basis of this experimental series, as our measurement’s accuracy is just on the border of Miller’s observations” (“Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 213).

Analyzing Piccard’s data, Múnera writes: “From 96 turns of an interferometer in a balloon over Belgium they obtained a speed of 6.9 km/s with a probable error of 7 km/s. According to conventional statistical practice, the result simply means that at 50% confidence level the true speed is in the interval from 0 to 13.9 km/s. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that one particular value (say, 0 km/s, or 13 km/s) is more likely than another. Then, Piccard and Stahel result is completely consistent with those of Miller.

Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.


As such, your statement "So, no there is no aether wind detected" only shows the shallowness of your research.


In the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment, listed by you, the authors are using the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model based on Lorentz transformations, as such useless to detect any ether drift. Moreover, they are using metallic chambers during the experiment, exactly the problem detected by Dr. Dayton Miller.

There is no such thing as Lorentz invariance:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."


Here is a simple experiment done in full vacuum which DOES detect ether drift, make sure to send this video to the authors of the article listed by you:



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909

(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)


Make sure you understand that you brought forth in front your readers the WRONG references, and you failed to do a proper research, one which does debunk immediately your claims.


« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 08:08:42 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2017, 02:27:23 AM »
Here is another experiment, mentioned before on page 1 of this thread, using cryogenic optical resonators, which also failed to detect light anisotropy:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf

Just like the Eisele/Nevsky/Schiller experiment, the authors FAILED to take into account that the interferometer needed to be surrounded by as little matter as possible, and located at a high altitude.


I don't even have to calculate to know your "the sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation" is wrong. The orbital vs rotational sagnac has the same speed of light and same area enclosed by the path, the only think left is the angular velocity of the rotation and you get dt.

Then you have a poor understanding of physics, in particular you do not understand the Sagnac effect.

Let me explain.

The orbital Sagnac and the rotational Sagnac DO NOT and CANNOT have the same area enclosed by the path.

What is the center of rotation for the orbit of the earth?

Here is the equation.

∆t = 4πRv / ( c˛ - v˛) = 4Aω / ( c˛ - v˛)

Where A = πR˛ and v = ωR

So, it is easy to calculate the orbital sagnac is more than 60 times that of the rotational.

But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Mathpages says one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.

It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth supposedly moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.

"Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Yet, this same logic applies and works with the earth's supposed rotation.


Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Here is how to correctly calculate the orbital Sagnac effect:

Earth's radius = 6357 km; r˛ = 40411449

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r˛ = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR˛ω/(c˛-v˛)
or

I use the linear velocity.

∆t = 4πRv/( c˛ - v˛ ), where v is the linear velocity.

For the earth's rotation, it is 0.4638333 km/ sec and the orbit v = 30km/sec.

∆t = 0.62831852628 for the earth's orbit.
Total path of the orbit is 2πr=2π(150,000,000 km) = 942,477,780km

Hence, the sagnac effect for a 1 km path, that means light source in the center and two receivers placed at .5km is:
0.62831852628 / 942,477,780km = 6.6666667 e-10 sec / km

Now, for the earth's rotation.
∆t = 4.1170061 e-7 seconds
Total path of the rotation is 2πr=2π(6357 km) = 39942.21 km


4.1170061 e-7 seconds / 39942.21 km = 1.0307407 e-11 sec / km


The sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation.



The orbital Sagnac, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered by GPS satellites.



The lunar laser ranging experiment is an astronomical version of the Sagnac experiment.

However, G. Sagnac used the fringe-shift method to measure indirectly light travel time;
while Dr. Daniel Gezari uses clocks to measure directly light travel time in both directions.

Shooting light to the moon has to do with the behavior of light like GPS.

The arrival time of light to a receptor is influenced by the motion of
the receptor relative to the earth: this is the basic discovery of G. Sagnac.

This fact has to be incorporated into the lunar laser ranging calculations.

Here is a basic reference which confirms this fact:

Ring-laser tests of fundamental physics and geophysics, G.E. Steadman, 1997, pg 15



One needs both the orbital and rotational Sagnac to calculate the correct timing, there is no way around that.


Dr. Daniel Gezari emitted a pulse of photons from a point on earth, bounced those photons off a reflector on the moon, and then recorded the photons’ arrival time at that same point on earth.


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

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


THE SMALL (~3M/S) SECOND ORDER RESIDUAL IS THE ORBITAL SAGNAC.


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.


Dr. Daniel Gezari:


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference


3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

Now, because of the vast distance, if the RE were correct, we should see 1/365 of the rotational sagnac in the measurements and that will show up on this vast distance.

So, if they are correct, then we should see the 1/365 conclusions in the measurements. Guess what. We do not.

Dr. Daniel Gezari's calculations prove otherwise: even in the diluted two way averaging form, the orbital Sagnac amounts for a 3/8.4 = 0.357 (35.7%) percentage of the rotational Sagnac.


It is also of interest to note that the missing orbital Sagnac effect proves that the lunar missions never occurred in reality, that the lunar laser ranging is actually a small mirror (in the form of a minuscule satellite) orbiting above the flat surface of the Earth right in front of the Moon, using the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.


More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/



Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.


The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.



You do understand English, do you not?

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/



Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.


The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 06:11:44 AM by sandokhan »

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2017, 03:37:22 AM »
altspace, you sound very desperate.
When are you going to learn that you don't stand a chance with me here?
You are the one that doesn't seem to stand a chance with anyone.
Again, do you have anything at all to refute the OP? Until you do, your argument is mute.
Do you have a valid reference?
Are you capable of explaining things yourself or just copying and pasting walls of text.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2017, 03:38:04 PM »
altspace, you sound very desperate.
I was thinking that about you, you posted a bunch of links and copy-paste in response to my debunking, and so far, my refutation in the OP is working. You still fail to successfully address it and explain the inconsistency.
Quote
When are you going to learn that you don't stand a chance with me here?
I don't stand a chance? Your aether is being debunked, and all you got is a select few questionable experiments to explain away the inconsistency between the Michelson-Morley type experiment measurements receiving negative results for an aether wind. It seems your model and luminiferous aether idea doesn't stand a chance against experimentation and science.
Quote
By far, the best ether drift experiment done over the past 150 years was performed by Dr. Yuri Galaev.
Because it seems to confirm your aether drag you want? No, you have yet to explain the other 95% of experiments that detect no aether wind and consistently gets no anisotropy in the speed of light.
Quote
Your lack of experience in ether drift theory is made evident by the fact that you do not understand the nature of the experiments listed by you earlier.
Then PROVE IT, demonstrate to me that the experiments I list are actually not inconsistent with the results of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.
Quote
As I told you, you are here to learn.
No, I am here to debunk and debate, so start addressing my refutation of the aether with the inconsistent experiments.
Quote
As such, your statement "So, no there is no aether wind detected" only shows the shallowness of your research.
No, it shows how shallow your attempts are to respond to this debunking, your aether idea does not hold to scrutiny, because it simply doesn't exist.
Quote
Here is a simple experiment done in full vacuum which DOES detect ether drift, make sure to send this video to the authors of the article listed by you:



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909

(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)
No it didn't, that is the result of excess ions with through thrust from high voltage. This isn't aether.


Quote
Make sure you understand that you brought forth in front your readers the WRONG references, and you failed to do a proper research, one which does debunk immediately your claims.
No, these aren't the wrong references, but you got the wrong theory, this conclusively debunks your aether and you have yet to address it.

THE PAPERS AND EXPERIMENTS THAT DEBUNK THE LUMINIFEROUS AETHER

Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment:
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


Resonator and Interferometer experiments detecting no aether wind and no anisotropy in the speed of light:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..133.1221J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T
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
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.060402
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..95d0404S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvD..74h1101S

And not mention the older experiments done in Miller's time, other than a couple of Miller's experiments, got a null result:

Michelson[4]   Potsdam   1881   1.2   0.04   ≤ 0.02   2   ∼ 20 km/s   0.02   {\displaystyle \approx } \approx  yes
Michelson and Morley[1]   Cleveland   1887   11.0   0.4   < 0.02
or ≤ 0.01   40   ∼ 4–8 km/s   0.01   {\displaystyle \approx } \approx  yes
Morley and Miller[12][13]   Cleveland   1902–1904   32.2   1.13   ≤ 0.015   80   ∼ 3.5 km/s   0.015   yes
Miller[17]   Mt. Wilson   1921   32.0   1.12   ≤ 0.08   15   ∼ 8–10 km/s   unclear  unclear
Miller[17]   Cleveland   1923–1924   32.0   1.12   ≤ 0.03   40   ∼ 5 km/s   0.03   yes
Miller (sunlight)[17]   Cleveland   1924   32.0   1.12   ≤ 0.014   80   ∼ 3 km/s   0.014   yes
Tomaschek (star light)[18]   Heidelberg   1924   8.6   0.3   ≤ 0.02   15   ∼ 7 km/s   0.02   yes
Miller[17][A 12]   Mt. Wilson   1925–1926   32.0   1.12   ≤ 0.088   13   ∼ 8–10 km/s   unclear   unclear
Kennedy[14]   Pasadena/Mt. Wilson   1926   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.002   35   ∼ 5 km/s   0.002   yes
Illingworth[15]   Pasadena   1927   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.0004   175   ∼ 2 km/s   0.0004  yes
Piccard & Stahel[19]   with a Balloon   1926   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.006   20   ∼ 7 km/s   0.006   yes
Piccard & Stahel[20]   Brussels   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0002   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Piccard & Stahel[21]   Rigi   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0003   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Michelson et al.[22]   Mt. Wilson   1929   25.9   0.9   ≤ 0.01   90   ∼ 3 km/s   0.01   yes
Joos[16]   Jena   1930   21.0   0.75   ≤ 0.002   375   ∼ 1.5 km/s   0.002   yes

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

Quote
Here is another experiment, mentioned before on page 1 of this thread, using cryogenic optical resonators, which also failed to detect light anisotropy:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf

Just like the Eisele/Nevsky/Schiller experiment, the authors FAILED to take into account that the interferometer needed to be surrounded by as little matter as possible, and located at a high altitude.
The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was done on ground and it got a positive result for rotation which modern top 10^-15 to 10^-17 resonator experiments fail to detect. Explain the consistency with both experiments, until then, your aether is meaningless debunked stuff.

To conclude my post:

The conclusion of the experimental part of a previously published memoir, on
“ Aberration Problems and the connexion between Ether and gross Matter,” dated
March, 1892, and published in the ‘Phil. Trans./ Series A, for 1893, p. 777, is as
follows:—
“ The velocity of light between two steel plates moving together in their own
plane, an inch apart, is not increased or diminished by so much as ^ g th part of
their velocity.”
Since that date, of March, 1892, a considerable number of further experiments
have been made, tending to confirm and extend the above conclusion; and of these
experiments it is the object of the present communication to give a brief account.
The general plan of experimenting having been sufficiently indicated in the previous
memoir, no more details will now be related beyond those necessary to make the
record of use to a later student of the subject.t The figures on pp. 759, 761, 767
illustrated the apparatus used.
The chief conclusion of the theoretical part of the former paper (p. 752) is that no
first-order effect of purely irrotational etherial motion can ever be optically detected; in
other words, that as long as the motion of a medium is characterised everywhere by a
single-valuedj potential function, the course of all observable rays through it, however
reflected and refracted they may be, is independent of the motion (no matter how the
waves may be tilted), and the time of journey along any given path through any kind
of material is likewise perfectly definite, and independent of the motion, except for
experiments directed to the second order of aberration-magnitude.
Hence no attempt to disturb the ether by using a spoked wheel, or revolving bars or paddles, would have a chance of success, unless there existed a trace of something
akin to viscosity by which the medium could be got hold of, and as the previous
arrangement of apparatus seemed as well calculated as any other to detect the
existence of a trace of viscosity, whereby ether in the immediate neighbourhood of
moving matter should sooner or later be more or less carried along by it, no fundamental
change in the mode of experiment seemed necessary; only improvement in
details, and some modifications, in order to secure a closer and a wider generalisation.
Hitherto the experiments had been conducted with a pair of hard steel disks like
circular saws, clamped together on a vertical axis, at a distance apart of one inch.
These disks had been spun, at a speed not exceeding 1250 revolutions a minute in
the most accurate experiments, and the effect of the motion on a bifurcated beam of
light, whose two halves travelled in opposite directions several times round in the
space between the disks, was observed. One . half of the light travelled in the same
sense as the motion, while the other half travelled in the opposite sense; the two
half beams were made to interfere in the field of view of a micrometer eye-piece, and
a shift of the central band of the system by so much as the hundredth part of the
width of a band could be observed. In making the above careful estimate of the
result, however,.the safe course was taken of assuming that v^-th of a band shift was
the minimum certainly detectable.
There were some modifications still to be made before accepting a definitely
negative result of experiment.
1st: to steady the motion, so that quantitative readings could be taken without
tremor at a much higher speed of rotation.
2nd : to continue the motion for some considerable time, and to narrow the light
channel or watch the effect close to a disk.
3rd; to increase the mass of the revolving matter.
4th ito magnetise the revolving material.
5th : to electrify it..
The connexion looked for between ether and matter being something of the
nature of viscosity, the space between the disks may be considered rather wide ;
though it is difficult to suppose that any motion generated at the surface of the; disks
in a substance possessing any of the properties of an ordinary fluid, should not spread
into the nearly enclosed space between them. It may, however, be conceivably
argued that this diffusion of motion might take considerable time, and hence tne
modification labelled No. 2 above was called for. The modification No. 3 is to meet
the argument that, even though a viscous connexion between ether and matter were
disproved, it did not follow that there was not another mode of connexion competent
to transmit motion from one to the other, viz.: the unknown kind of
connexion which is concerned in gravitation; and to display any effect on this,
a large mass must be used.
It is to be observed, that since a motion of the disks relatively to the observer
and the light causes no effect, the ether being stationary, it follows that a motion of
the light and observer would produce an effect, since they would be moving
relatively to the ether. Hence if, instead of spinning only the disks, the whole
apparatus, lantern, optical frame, telescope, observer and all were mounted on a turntable
and caused to rotate, a reversible shift of the bands should be seen. It would
not matter in the least whether the disks were revolving or not, and they might just
as well be absent. The effect would be of an aberrational kind, the opposite light
beams being accelerated and retarded by the motion appropriately. In an actual
experiment of this kind, centrifugal force would give some trouble by introducing
strains, and rapid rotation would be uncomfortable for the observer ; but really rapid
rotation should be unnecessary to show the effect. My present optical apparatus
mounted on a turn-table revolving 4 times a minute should show something, viz. :
T o ljth band shift each way. A certain amount of discomfort during the accelerative
stages of any speed could hardly be avoided, and even during steady motion there
would be some inconvenience; for instance, at 30 revolutions a minute the observer’s
weight, at a metre and a half from the centre, would be half as much again, and
would be inclined at 45° to the vertical. This, however, might be tolerated.


-- http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/189/149.full.pdf

This is a debunking of the aether that goes along with the OP, since no aether is detected relative to the observer, it must be stationary, which contradicts the MGP experiment.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 03:47:13 PM by AltSpace »
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2017, 04:03:36 PM »
You not only sound very desperate, but also very confused.

No it didn't, that is the result of excess ions with through thrust from high voltage.

The experiment was performed IN FULL VACUUM, no excess ions there.

You really need to update your knowledge of ether drift experiments.


Your light isotropy experiments have been debunked in my previous message.

The Kennedy, Illingworth, Joos, Stahel, Piccard experiments used METALLIC CHAMBERS, as such they are rendered useless in detecting ether drift.

You had no knowledge of the Atsukovsky effect or of the Cahill criterion as they are being applied to light isotropy experiments.

This alone shows the shalowness of your research which is being ripped into shreds right here.

Your lack of experience in ether drift theory is made evident by the fact that you do not understand the nature of the experiments listed by you earlier.

Dr. Dayton Miller specified quite clearly:


"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesirable
while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".

As I told you, you are here to learn.

Make sure you read and understand why the experiments listed by you done by Kennedy, Stahel and Illingworth are useless, as they were performed in METALLIC CHAMBERS:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212

While Kennedy, Illingworth, Stahel and Joos had no idea about the Atsukovsky effect, the authors of the other light isotropy experiments performed recently in time have no excuse.

There is also another aspect worth noticing when using vacuum chamber ether drift experiments.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Moreover, the Piccard-Stahel experiments did detect ether drift.

Lynch writes: “…a series of experiments of Professor Piccard of Brussels which at first failed to show, even at the summit of the Rigi, at over six thousand feet of altitude, an ether wind of more than one and a half kilometers a second. Experiments by balloon gave a very different result, the ether wind at eight thousand feet being nine kilometers a second” (The Case Against Einstein, p. 45). Galaev reports that the results were 7 km/sec and that the team concluded that “We cannot discuss Miller’s result on the basis of this experimental series, as our measurement’s accuracy is just on the border of Miller’s observations” (“Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 213).

Analyzing Piccard’s data, Múnera writes: “From 96 turns of an interferometer in a balloon over Belgium they obtained a speed of 6.9 km/s with a probable error of 7 km/s. According to conventional statistical practice, the result simply means that at 50% confidence level the true speed is in the interval from 0 to 13.9 km/s. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that one particular value (say, 0 km/s, or 13 km/s) is more likely than another. Then, Piccard and Stahel result is completely consistent with those of Miller.

Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.


In the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment, listed by you, the authors are using the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model based on Lorentz transformations, as such useless to detect any ether drift. Moreover, they are using metallic chambers during the experiment, exactly the problem detected by Dr. Dayton Miller.

There is no such thing as Lorentz invariance:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."

Here is another experiment, mentioned before on page 1 of this thread, using cryogenic optical resonators, which also failed to detect light anisotropy:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf

Just like the Eisele/Nevsky/Schiller experiment, the authors FAILED to take into account that the interferometer needed to be surrounded by as little matter as possible, and located at a high altitude.






Your links have been debunked.

You lose.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2017, 05:03:39 PM »
The experiment was performed IN FULL VACUUM, no excess ions there.
Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters are fed high voltage, which includes ion thrust. It is not electrogravitic like your copy-paste sources claim.
Quote
You really need to update your knowledge of ether drift experiments.
None of them show aether, the Miller experiments were debunked and you simply quote a non-working response that claims the author should consult pro-aether advocates, it fails to do anything, analysis shows the disturbances boil down to zero aether drag, consistent with the rest of the negative experimental results.
Quote
Your light isotropy experiments have been debunked in my previous message.
No they haven't, you simply copy-paste a few experiments you choose to accept and dismiss the other 95%.
Again, EXPLAIN HOW YOUR EXAMPLES PROVIDE NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE MGP EXPERIMENT BY ASSUMING AETHER.
Quote
The Kennedy, Illingworth, Joos, Stahel, Piccard experiments used METALLIC CHAMBERS, as such they are rendered useless in detecting ether drift.
Typical excuse by aether advocates, the 10^-17 level could easily detect the anistropy of the speed of light to the proximity of the MGP experiment for consistent results, but didn't. The increased sensitivity renders an inconsistency between MGP and these aether detection experiments. So, the aether simply doesn't work, it is a failed hypothesis and so debunks your theory.
Quote
This alone shows the shalowness of your research which is being ripped into shreds right here.
No, you still haven't debunked the OP.
Quote
Your lack of experience in ether drift theory is made evident by the fact that you do not understand the nature of the experiments listed by you earlier.
Actually, it only shows your increasing excuses for why modern experiments can't detect aether wind like the MGP would have assuming aether, you have yet to explain this contradiction. I think I know why, it can't be explained.
Quote
Dr. Dayton Miller specified quite clearly:
Which has already been shown to be full of BS (having statistically insignificant disturbances). Got anything new? Like the increased sensitivity experiments that detect zero anistropy at ground level while the MGP experiment did.

Quote
As I told you, you are here to learn.
Again, I am here to expose your theories and debate it.

Quote
Make sure you read and understand why the experiments listed by you done by Kennedy, Stahel and Illingworth are useless, as they were performed in METALLIC CHAMBERS:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212

While Kennedy, Illingworth, Stahel and Joos had no idea about the Atsukovsky effect, the authors of the other light isotropy experiments performed recently in time have no excuse.

There is also another aspect worth noticing when using vacuum chamber ether drift experiments.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Moreover, the Piccard-Stahel experiments did detect ether drift.

Lynch writes: “…a series of experiments of Professor Piccard of Brussels which at first failed to show, even at the summit of the Rigi, at over six thousand feet of altitude, an ether wind of more than one and a half kilometers a second. Experiments by balloon gave a very different result, the ether wind at eight thousand feet being nine kilometers a second” (The Case Against Einstein, p. 45). Galaev reports that the results were 7 km/sec and that the team concluded that “We cannot discuss Miller’s result on the basis of this experimental series, as our measurement’s accuracy is just on the border of Miller’s observations” (“Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 213).

Analyzing Piccard’s data, Múnera writes: “From 96 turns of an interferometer in a balloon over Belgium they obtained a speed of 6.9 km/s with a probable error of 7 km/s. According to conventional statistical practice, the result simply means that at 50% confidence level the true speed is in the interval from 0 to 13.9 km/s. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that one particular value (say, 0 km/s, or 13 km/s) is more likely than another. Then, Piccard and Stahel result is completely consistent with those of Miller.

Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.


In the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment, listed by you, the authors are using the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model based on Lorentz transformations, as such useless to detect any ether drift. Moreover, they are using metallic chambers during the experiment, exactly the problem detected by Dr. Dayton Miller.

There is no such thing as Lorentz invariance:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."
Stop posting the same copy-paste BS and engage in a discussion.
Quote
Just like the Eisele/Nevsky/Schiller experiment, the authors FAILED to take into account that the interferometer needed to be surrounded by as little matter as possible, and located at a high altitude.
But the MGP experiment didn't need to:
"A rectangular tract of land at Clearing, Illinois, 2010 feet from
east to west and 1113 feet from north to south, was carefully surveyed
and staked by Dr. Kannenstine, and twelve-inch water pipes
were laid straight and level around the entire circuit with a double
line across one end."
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf

And doing the same with optical resonators reveals no aether wind.
Quote
Your links have been debunked.

You lose.
Nope, you are far from winning.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2017, 10:37:11 PM »
altspace, you are turning yourself into another jackblack: you are resorting to plain cognitive dissonance to hide your inability to face reality.

Moreover, you have betrayed the trust of your readers: you made certain claims regarding your links, only to see them sink down the drain once you had to face me in a direct debate.


Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters are fed high voltage, which includes ion thrust. It is not electrogravitic like your copy-paste sources claim.

Ion wind is not a factor even in normal conditions.

In full vacuum, ion wind cannot be relied upon to provide an explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect: the whole point of the vacuum chamber experiment was to eliminate the possibility of an ion wind.

But it seems these things are way beyond your technical capability to understand very simple concepts.


Since the time of the first test the apparatus and the methods used have been greatly improved and simplified. Cellular "gravitators" have taken the place of the large balls of lead. Rotating frames supporting two and four gravitators have made possible acceleration measurements. Molecular gravitators made of solid blocks of massive dielectric have given still greater efficiency. Rotors and pendulums operating under oil have eliminated atmospheric considerations as to pressure, temperature and humidity.

The disturbing effects of ionization, electron emission and pure electro-statics have likewise been carefully analyzed and eliminated. Finally after many years of tedious work and with refinement of methods we succeeded in observing the gravitational variations produced by the moon and sun and much smaller variations produced by the different planets.

Let us take, for example, the case of a gravitator totally immersed in oil but suspended so as to act as a pendulum and swing along the line of its elements.



When the direct current with high voltage (75-300 kilovolts) is applied the gravitator swings up the arc until its propulsive force balances the force of the earth's gravity resolved to that point, then it stops, but it does not remain there. The pendulum then gradually returns to the vertical or starting position even while the potential is maintained. The pendulum swings only to one side of the vertical. Less than five seconds is required for the test pendulum to reach the maximum amplitude of the swing but from thirty to eighty seconds are required for it to return to zero.

(T.T. Brown, How I Control Gravitation, 1929)

“When a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to a capacitor whose electrodes have different physical dimensions, the capacitor experiences a net force toward the smaller electrode (Biefeld-Brown effect).

The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).”
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.


VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:



The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)



Even in normal conditions, ion wind is not a factor in describing the Biefeld-Brown effect.

The very purpose of a VACUUM chamber is to eliminate the possibility of any ion wind influence upon the experiment.

Once a vacuum chamber is being used, you no longer have at your disposal the choice to bring ion wind into discussion.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 11:01:31 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2017, 10:47:14 PM »
You haven't done your homework on either the MG experiment, or on the Miller experiment, yet here you are issuing forth false statements betraying the utter shalowness of your poorly conducted research.

"To eliminate the effects of air, Michelson and Gale reassembled
the mile-long, one-foot-wide watermain pipe. The second abstract reads:
Experimental Test of Theory: Air was exhausted from a
twelve-inch pine line laid on the surface of the ground in the
form of a rectangle 2010 × 1113 feet. Light from a carbon arc
was divided at one corner by a thinly coated mirror into direct
and reflected beams, which were reflected around the rectangle
by mirrors at the corners. The two beams returning to the
original mirror produced interference fringes. The beam
traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction was
retarded. The observed displacement of the fringes was found
to be 0.230 ∀ .005, agreeing with the computed value 0.236 ∀
.002 within the limits of experimental error.

The tests were made on thirteen different days with a total of 269
observations, almost always with the same results. The lowest value for
the displacement in the fringes was 0.193 while the highest was 0.255
with the mean displacement coming in at 0.230. Thus, right before
Michelson’s own eyes, the 1913 Sagnac results were confirmed and his
1887 interpretation was put in question, as was Relativity. Here was
further proof, to the order of ten times the power of the Sagnac
experiment, that there is, indeed, an absolute space in which absolute
rotation occurs. Something was affecting the light in order for it to
consistently produce the fringe displacement.

Michelson-Gale detected the ether moving past the Earth’s
surface at 2% of the rotation speed. While the Michelson-Morley
experiment detected no heliocentric movement, the Michelson-Gale
experiment measured either the effect of the Earth’s rotation or the
ether’s rotation around the Earth.


 In addition to the
previous quotes from Einstein we cited showing that Miller was hot on
his trail, several more show how nervous Einstein became over Miller’s
undaunted quest. In a letter Einstein once wrote to Edwin E. Slosson, he
states:
My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the
following.…Should the positive result be confirmed, then the
special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of
relativity, in its current form, would be invalid.…Only the
equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however,
they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.

Miller’s experiments, conducted over a period of 20 years,
showed time and time again the same thing that Sagnac and MichelsonGale
had found – slight fringe shifts in the interferometer that indicated
ether as the cause. In fact, Miller wasn’t boasting of anything he had
discovered; rather, he made it clear that he was acquiring the same
positive results that Michelson-Morley obtained way back in 1887.

Miller
earned his doctorate in science in 1890 from the prestigious Princeton
University (the same institution at which Einstein would eventually have
a professorship), as well as being president of both the American
Physical Society (1925-1926) and Acoustical Society of America (1913-
1933). He was chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the
National Research Council (1927-1930), and chairman of the physics
department of Case School of Applied Science (aka: Case Western
University). He was also an active member of the National Academy of
Sciences. In short, Miller was a force with which to be reckoned. It is
safe to say that, with his expertise Miller performed the most extensive
and sophisticated interferometer experiments ever devised. He used the
largest and most sensitive equipment to date. He floated the device on a
pool of mercury to eliminate friction (at great expense), and used
different bases: wood, metal and concrete. He did tests at different times
of the day, different seasons of the year, different altitudes, different
latitudes and with different light sources. He took precautions against
thermal distortions by insulating the apparatus in one-inch cork and by
applying uniform parabolic heaters and taking account of human body
heat. He covered the interferometer in glass so that drift would not be
inhibited. He used a 50× magnification telescope to observe the fringes,
which allowed him to see down to the hundredth scale. Miller even
switched to an interferometer made of aluminum and brass to eliminate
possible effects from magneto-constriction. Over all, he took over
200,000 different readings from 1902-1926. By contrast, the 1887
Michelson-Morley had a grand total of 36 readings on an apparatus that
was much smaller and less accurate. It was covered in wood and situated
in the basement of a large stone building, both of which limit the
sensitivity since such insulated locations will shield much of the ether
drift. And still, they managed to obtain a small positive result, as they
themselves admitted. Thus, Einstein had a lot to worry about since, if
Miller’s result was correct, and it seemed so, by Einstein’s own verbatim
admission, Miller would totally destroy Relativity theory.

One of the interesting features of Miller’s results is that they were
calculated in relation to sidereal time, that is, against the displacement
between a star and the Earth, as opposed to the sun and the Earth. The
former time yields 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds; the latter 24
hours exactly. This shows that the ether is drifting in relation to the
stars, and thus gives a more definitive picture of absolute motion. "


You are out of luck altspace: clear, undeniable proof of the correctness of Dr. Dayton Miller's experiments regarding ether drift.

Einstein could not debunk them. Neither could Shankland. Neither could T. Roberts.

And of course neither can you.

You lose.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2017, 10:54:50 PM »
No they haven't, you simply copy-paste a few experiments you choose to accept and dismiss the other 95%.

I did no such thing.

Using the Atsukovsky effect and the Cahill criterion, I simply showed that the authors of the experiments listed by you simply chose to ignore these effects, thus rendering the expeirments null and void.

Please read.

Make sure you read and understand why the experiments listed by you done by Kennedy, Stahel and Illingworth are useless, as they were performed in METALLIC CHAMBERS:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212

While Kennedy, Illingworth, Stahel and Joos had no idea about the Atsukovsky effect, the authors of the other light isotropy experiments performed recently in time have no excuse.

There is also another aspect worth noticing when using vacuum chamber ether drift experiments.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Moreover, the Piccard-Stahel experiments did detect ether drift.

Lynch writes: “…a series of experiments of Professor Piccard of Brussels which at first failed to show, even at the summit of the Rigi, at over six thousand feet of altitude, an ether wind of more than one and a half kilometers a second. Experiments by balloon gave a very different result, the ether wind at eight thousand feet being nine kilometers a second” (The Case Against Einstein, p. 45). Galaev reports that the results were 7 km/sec and that the team concluded that “We cannot discuss Miller’s result on the basis of this experimental series, as our measurement’s accuracy is just on the border of Miller’s observations” (“Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 213).

Analyzing Piccard’s data, Múnera writes: “From 96 turns of an interferometer in a balloon over Belgium they obtained a speed of 6.9 km/s with a probable error of 7 km/s. According to conventional statistical practice, the result simply means that at 50% confidence level the true speed is in the interval from 0 to 13.9 km/s. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that one particular value (say, 0 km/s, or 13 km/s) is more likely than another. Then, Piccard and Stahel result is completely consistent with those of Miller.

Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.


In the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment, listed by you, the authors are using the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model based on Lorentz transformations, as such useless to detect any ether drift. Moreover, they are using metallic chambers during the experiment, exactly the problem detected by Dr. Dayton Miller.


Here is more technical proof that an ether drift experiment performed in vacuum will nullify the final results: an effect you had no knowledge of.

In vacuum YOU HAVE TO use either torsion, pressure, sound or electricity to detect ether.





Can you now understand the utter fallacy of your statement:

Typical excuse by aether advocates, the 10^-17 level could easily detect the anistropy of the speed of light to the proximity of the MGP experiment for consistent results, but didn't. The increased sensitivity renders an inconsistency between MGP and these aether detection experiments.

Not even if they go to 10^-30, nothing will be detected for the reasons explained above.

Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.

You lose.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2017, 10:58:58 PM »
The best ever ether drift experiment, performed by Dr. Yuri Galaev, proves the existence of ether waves beyond a shadow of a doubt.

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/EtherDrift/Galaev2.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://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.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


You lose.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2017, 12:10:50 AM »
Oh Sandokhan, your research needs updating, looks like you are the one needing to do your homework.

altspace, you are turning yourself into another jackblack: you are resorting to plain cognitive dissonance to hide your inability to face reality.
That's what you are doing, you mask your inability to engage in rational discussion on the key points here by copy-pasting and spamming links over and over. Why don't you just put that aside for once and discuss with me and others about this?

As for the rest, it can easily be summarized into three key points:

1. You say an ion wind explains the Biefeld-Brown Effect with the Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters.

2. Miller conducted a bunch of tests and therefore proved the existence of an aether wind.

3. The chambers in which the the super sensitive tests for aether wind in which modern experiments were done with are inadequate to detect such an aether wind anyways.

1. You say an ion wind explains the Biefeld-Brown Effect with the Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters.
Stop making up crap about what I said. The capacitor thrusters are fed high voltage and develop thrust leading away from a large electrode, excess ions are thrown off from this with the Biefeld-Brown Effect. This is possible in a vacuum as well as it doesn't need air ions to help push to work.

2. Miller conducted a bunch of tests and therefore proved the existence of an aether wind.
Again, he did no such thing, he got disturbances that were insignificant and amount to zero.

"These data display frequent instabilities, including occasional drifts of more than 2 fringes per turn and occasional
jumps as large as 1.5 fringes between successive markers (!). One run drifted by 18 fringes in 17 turns; but then,
three runs drifted by less than 1 fringe during 20 turns. Examination of the data suggests classifying regions of
instability as any drift with a rate of more than ˝ fringe during ˝ turn. That is five times the largest signal Miller
claimed, and almost ten times the amplitude of the plot at the bottom of Fig. 1. These regions of instability do not
display any consistent orientation dependence in any run. The model of the systematic drift cannot be expected to fit
runs with major instabilities, because its assumption that the systematic drift is as small as possible is violated for
such rapid drifts.
The presence of instabilities has a modest effect on the χ
2
 of the fits to the systematic drift, but the
presence of a large number of instabilities in a run has a significant effect on whether or not the systematic model
matches the data. The best characterization found is the total number of turns in a run without instabilities: the plot
of the raw data for each of the 67 runs in the sample was manually examined, separating it into regions of instability
(during which the interferometer drifted at least ˝ fringe during ˝ turn), and regions of stability (1 turn or more with
no such rapid drift). The durations of the stable regions were then summed, without requiring them to be consecutive.
Figure 11 shows the results of this analysis, displaying the ˝-turn Fourier amplitude of data minus systematic for all
67 runs in the sample; this is the true signal for this analysis. Runs plotted with closed circles have at least 6 stable
turns, while those plotted with open circles have 5 or fewer stable turns (i.e. ľ or more of the turns are unstable by
the above criterion). Each fit includes the entire run; the instabilities are used only to select an open or closed circle for the plot. All of the closed circles have zero amplitude, because the systematic model reproduces the data exactly
for all runs with moderate or good stability. The lack of variance in these runs’ amplitudes is explained by the
quantization of both data and parameters at 0.1 fringe; varying any one parameter by its quantum increases χ
2
significantly. The runs which have nonzero amplitude all have major instabilities of the instrument throughout the
run, and the plot of data-systematic is zero except for one point of 0.1 fringe (the quantum) or two points of 0.1
fringe with the same sign – these cannot reasonably be interpreted as a “sinusoid signal”, and look much more like a
fit to a systematic drift that is not as small as possible.

As this analysis concludes there is no signal in Miller’s data, it can set an upper limit on any signal with period ˝
turn and on the “absolute motion of the earth”. From Fig. 11 (omitting runs with open circles as discussed above), a
reasonable estimate of the overall errorbar is 0.015 fringe for all sidereal times and all epochs of data. The errorbar
is dominated by the systematic drift, and the availability of many runs does not decrease it. That implies an upper
limit of 0.025 fringe at the 90% confidence level (1.65 σ). This must then be increased by 1/cos(latitude) to account
for the worst-case projection onto the plane of the interferometer. Figure 20 of (Miller, 1933) relates fringe shift to
his model of absolute speed, yielding an upper limit on the earth’s absolute motion of 6 km/sec (90% confidence
level). This value is consistent with similar experimental measurements, and with the null result predicted by Special
Relativity.
"

This new analysis obtains a value of zero, and puts an upper bound on the “absolute motion of the earth” of 6 km/s (90%
confidence level). This is fully consistent with similar measurements, and with the null result predicted by Special
Relativity.


-- https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

The outdoors was precisely what interfered and wrecked Miller's experiment:
...And ever since then, those who seek to re-establish the old notion of a static Aether that would be detected by its supposed drift, have taken recourse to Miller's results, pushing them to the forefront as if they were a repressed of Physics that betrayed the "truth of an electromagnetic Aether". However, Miller never fully achieved a demonstration that the borderline periodic displacements he observed could not be related to sensible and latent heat lag effects derived from solar ambipolar radiation.... ... Miller himself eventually acknowledged that there were thermal effects at work. Since he wanted his apparatus to be as exposed to the elements as possible, it would invariably detect a diurnal variation in the start-up calibration (to say that sunlight might have caused spurious peaks is of little use if complete diurnal atmospheric records were not being kept; for instance, he should have taken control temperatures of the room, walls and roof, which apparently he did not). Nowhere does Miller seem to have controlled for this in a systematic fashion. But it is not just the heating effect of the sun upon the atmosphere that one should consider (even if it happened only once, which is rather unlikely...), but equally the cooling effect of nighttime. We have seen these effects in ORACs and therefore can easily suppose that they would affect such a sensitive interferometer as Miller's. More disturbing still is that the data Miller obtained - with his final and improved interferometer - yielded two very different reports of the direction of the aether drift...
-- http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.7.pdf

So, it would invariably detect a diurnal variation and so Miller's method was inaccurate and therefore you can't use it as evidence.
That fails,
and meanwhile, you have the modern controlled experiments that detect no anisotropy in the speed of light:
How about instead of pointing to a few experiments, address all the others which get the same result, no aether wind.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..133.1221J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T
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
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.060402
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..95d0404S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvD..74h1101S

And of course, the MGP experiment that absolutely demolishes your luminiferous aether you so desperately hold to:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf

These experiments were properly controlled (well, the old ones I previously mentioned such as Michelson-Morley are problematic to an extent but no matter what, there wasn't an aether wind in any of these), and consistently get no aether wind. You can't simply go Miller's route and use the flawed experiment method which can easily be effected by the openness of his experiment, you have to control for it. When you do, there is no anisotropy of light.

"A triangular interferometer passes two beams around the interferometer in opposite directions. A portion of the optical path contains a piece of glass. If the phase velocity of light is anisotropic, the fringe pattern will shift as the interferometer is rotated relative to the fixed stars. The interferometer is sensitive to anisotropies that behave as the first or third Legendre polynomials, P1(φ) and P3(φ), where φ is the angle between a preferred direction in space and the direction of light propagation. The maximum change in the speed of light is less than 0.03 +/- 2.5 cm/sec for the P1 anistropy, and is less than 0.7 +/- 0.45 cm/sec for the P1 anisotropy. If an ether wind can be described by a Fresnel dragging coefficient when light passes through glass, the ether wind would be detectable by this experiment. This experiment sets an upper limit of 0.045 +/- 3.8 cm/sec for the ether wind at the surface of the earth."
-- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T

"In conclusion, we find no clear evidence for a violation
of isotropy of the frequency of a linear electromagnetic
cavity, analyzed either within the RMS model, or within
the SME limited to the photonic sector. The 1 uncertainties
of the SME violation coefficients (~e) and đ~oţŢ
are equal to or less than 2  1017, except for đ~eŢ
ZZ,
where a conservative estimate is 12  1017. Within the
RMS model our experiment shows that the anisotropy of
the speed of light on Earth, đ1=2Ţjcđ=2Ţj=c0, is less than
0:6  1017 (1 level). These results represent a strong
improvement on previous experiments. We stress that, independent
of the particular model used in deriving violation
coefficients (and the interpretation in terms of isotropy
of c given here), the experimental results represent a strong
test of one aspect of local Lorentz invariance, the independence
of the outcome of experiments from orientation."
-- 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

Quote
Michelson-Gale detected the ether moving past the Earth’s
surface at 2% of the rotation speed. While the Michelson-Morley
experiment detected no heliocentric movement, the Michelson-Gale
experiment measured either the effect of the Earth’s rotation or the
ether’s rotation around the Earth.
Good, this is correct if the aether were to exist, but it would also be correct that aether winds would be detectable under controlled experiments. Which it doesn't.

"In general the two sets of fringes will not coincide in position,
entirely aside from any question of ether drift or the earth’s rotation,
unless the two direct images and the two reflected images of the
source are exactly superposed. The central fringes of the set formed
by the mirrors of the short circuit will be halfway between the direct
and reflected images of the source, and the central fringe of the long
line would be halfway between the direct and reflected images if
there were no difference due to the earth’s rotation.
To correct for any lack of superposition of the two sets of rays,
the observing telescope (a six-inch achromatic objective, and twoinch
micrometer eyepiece) was focused on the images of the source
(arc or slit) and the apparent displacement of the central fringe of
the long circuit, compared with the central fringe of the short circuit,
was corrected by an amount equal to the difference in the mean
positions of the two images for the two light circuits. The fringes
are most conveniently observed in the overlapping cones of light
an inch or so inside or outside of the focal plane.
About half of the determinations were made with the arc placed
directly in frońt of the window at A, and about half with a condensing
lens, slit, and collimating lens. The second arrangement
gave much more light than the first, but there was no apparent
difference in the measured displacements.
The calculated value of the displacement on the assumption of a
stationary ether as well as in accordance with relativity is


where A is the displacement in fringes, A ' the area in square kilometers,
(ˇ> the latitude (4i°46'), V the velocity of light, co the angular
velocity of the earth, and X the effective wave-length of the light
used. Measurements were made in the laboratory, comparing the
fringes produced by the same set of mirrors and the same 20-ampere
alternating-current arc, with fringes produced by sodium light from
a bit of glass in an oxyhydrogen flame. The light from the arc was
reduced to approximately the same intensity as in the experiment
at Clearing, by transmitting it through a rather narrow slit in a rotating disk. The mean of ten determinations gave X = 57ood= 50
angstroms."
-- http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf
Both the aether and relativity predict the sagnac effect, and the aether results here would also be detectable by the other Interferometer fringe and resonator experiments at the identical level of a mean 0.230 fringe displacement, matching Earth's rotation or equivalent aether wind, but they don't no matter what level when they should.

You baselessly explain this fact away by proclaiming we must follow the flawed Miller method to get something, which, is essentially admitting that we can't accurately detect it in a controlled experiment like the lorentz aether has been proclaiming.


3. The chambers in which the the super sensitive tests for aether wind in which modern experiments were done with are inadequate to detect such an aether wind anyways.
This point fails to work here since your alternative provides a high vulnerability to detecting a diurnal variation. Even Miller acknowledged this. When you remove this, there is no aether wind.

This has forced the many others that were so persistent in assuming aether to adopt theories such as the lorentz aether and others that make aether impossible to detect by any of our means, which you seem to be using as an excuse here. However, if aether is to be assumed, it would have to be detectable since the MGP got rotational results. This inconsistency kills the aether hypothesis.

And you still have yet to explain how your examples provide no inconsistency with the MGP experiment by assuming aether. All you did was spam links and told me I can't use the other experiments that demonstrate you are wrong as evidence.


You lose.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2017, 01:40:24 AM »
You not only sound very desperate, but also very confused.
No it didn't, that is the result of excess ions with through thrust from high voltage.
The experiment was performed IN FULL VACUUM, no excess ions there.
Describing yourself yet again.

There is no such thing as a full vacuum.

Did you mean a perfect vacuum?
If so, that is impossible to achieve.
There would still have been quite a few molecules there.

Try again.
And once again, do you have anything that actually addresses the OP, or just irrelevant spam?

You are yet to debunk anything.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2017, 01:57:31 AM »
The capacitor thrusters are fed high voltage and develop thrust leading away from a large electrode, excess ions are thrown off from this with the Biefeld-Brown Effect.  No it didn't, that is the result of excess ions with through thrust from high voltage.

Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:





Your lack of understading of the Biefeld-Brown effect is appaling.

You have failed, as usual, to explain the ether drift recorded in the vacuum chamber, using the Biefeld-Brown effect.


You have resorted to using the T. Roberts paper which has already been debunked thoroughly by Dr. James DeMeo.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977156#msg1977156

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977157#msg1977157 (issues related to temperature)

Letter addressed to T. Roberts:

You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject.
The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.

You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.


Those Cleveland experiments undertaken by Miller prior to Mt. Wilson
often were calibration tests, or experiments to evaluate different
materials for the base and composition of the interferometer, under
different thermal environments, and so on. It seems probable, the data
set you analyzed was another of those calibration tests. Again, the
graphs appearing in Millers 1933 paper were composed from his Mt.
Wilson experiments of 1925 and 1926, not from any data from Cleveland
in August 1927.
Perhaps you can give a citation as to where you noted
some kind of graphs for the August 1927 data? I cannot recall any such
publication of Miller's post-Mt.Wilson data. After Mt. Wilson, he was
finished with the problem, felt he had nailed it down. Is it possible,
you have data sets from some of his students? I merely ask, because
there is no relevance to the data you undertook to re-analyze.

Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
neither the Shankland critique, nor your critique, addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has
already been confirmed by others.

The Cleveland experiments, pre-Mt.Wilson or post-Mt.Wilson, are not
significant for the question of ether-drift on a number of counts.
Firstly, as mentioned, they were mostly calibration experiments -- can
you cite a publication somewhere which reports on those post-Mt.Wilson
experiments in Cleveland?
Are you sure you do not have, by some
accident, the data sheets from 1927 of Michelson-Pease-Pearson? ( If
so, I'd like to get a copy of them!) I would ask, where did you get
your set of Miller data sheets? The only ones I know about include the
full sets from Mt. Wilson, so it seems strange to me that you'd get
only the 1927 data sheets, but not the others from 1925 and 1926 -- I
searched both the Miller and Shankland Archives, plus materials from
Einstein's archives in Jerusalem, and found only one or two of his data
sheets. An unpublished interview with Shankland suggested he
(Shankland) had burned them. With that alarming possibility, I pushed
one of the Case Physics professors to undertake a search in some old
rooms where Miller's stuff had been stored for years, collecting dust
-- and he found them, turning them over to the Case Archive
department. I had copies made of the full data sets -- over 1000
pages. So how did you get possession of only the 1927 data?

As Miller wrote in his 1933 paper (p.228):

"More than half of [my 200,000] readings were made in the Mount Wilson
observations of 1925 and 1926. ... 12,800 single measures of the
velocity of ether-drift and 25,600 single determinations of the apex of
this motion."

These were in April, August and September of 1925, and February of
1926. NOT in August of 1927.

There is a reason why the Mt. Wilson experiments yielded good positive
results, and nearly all other such experiments did not -- it is because
the altitude of the experiment above sea-level influences the result,
due to Earth-entrainment (slowing down) of the Ether. I discuss this
fully in my papers, and so won't repeat it here. The original
Michelson-Morely experiment, the Morley-Miller experiments and the
Miller experiments outside of Mt. Wilson were all performed in
low-altitude Cleveland, often inside the stone structure of the Case
Physics building. The MM experiment also took place in a basement
location, and Miller demonstrated that only by going to higher
altitudes and also removing all dense materials at the light-beam path
-- the metal or heavy wood covers as used by so many others -- would
the ether-drift show itself more easily. Miller did the high-altitude
experiments and got a postive result. Same with
Michelson-Pease-Pearson, and a few others. Galaev more recently
confirmed it. How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson.
But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.

There is more which could be said, but it is late, and I'm sure you'll
have a reply to what's here already. I suggest firstly to review my
papers on the subject, so I won't necessarily be repeating myself.

Regards,

James DeMeo


Dear Tom Roberts,

If I could summarize again:

1) You analyzed an apparently unpublished set of data from one of
Miller's tests in Cleveland, when the most serious data which requires
attention is from his Mt. Wilson experiments. I'm sure one could find
unpublished data from Michelson as well, or from Einstein's work -- it
may have historical significance, but is not the point of discussion if
you wish to refute what provides a foundation for much of new interest
in ether and ether-drift. I have no idea why Glen Deen gave you this
data set, instead of something from the Mt. Wilson experiments. Maybe
he can clarify this.

2) The tests in Cleveland would very likely have produced a signal far
below that of the Mt. Wilson experiments, given the effect of altitude
-- higher altitudes produce higher ether-drift velocities, as
documented by Galaev. Therefore, whatever your critique of the
Cleveland 1927 experiments were, they would not apply, or apply only
less-so to the Mt. Wilson experiments of 1925-26. You cannot presume
to assert the "signal to noise" levels were the same for both sets of
experiments. That's an unproven assumption.

3) Even if we assume, the variance within the measurements for any one
of the four seasonal epochs at Mt. Wilson was large, to rest upon that
observation and go no farther is to miss the forest for the trees.
Larger patterns in data sets often are not apparent or ammenable to
analysis via statistical methodology, but rather require dynamical
methods of analysis, or sometimes graphical or
geographical-astrocartographical methods. For example:

4) I did not mean to imply that low-altitude ether-drift experiments
would yield "no signal" at all. They do, but apparently of a reduced
intensity. Consequently, we might ask if the August 1927 data which
you analyzed yielded a variation over sidereal-clock coordinates? And
if so, is this variation along the same sidereal hour axis as what
Miller noted for the Mt. Wilson experiments, even if the velocity
determination would be at a lower level? If so, that would be in
keeping with his overall theory and findings. Miller's pre-Mt.Wilson
tests in Cleveland DID occasionally show similar vectors, as did the
Morley-Miller and even the Michelson-Morley experiment. Yes, he did a
lot of testing and control experiments, as Einstein was at the time
proclaiming (without evidence) that Miller's work was the consequence
of "thermal artifacts". So he did a lot of work to show, exactly, how
the interferometer would react to both small and large external heating
effects, and precautions were undertaken, such as shielding the
interferometer arms with insulation, and so on. NONE of those
experiments -- Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, or Miller in Cleveland
ever produced a fully "null" or "zero" result, which by itself is
significant. But the data was best at Mt. Wilson, and likewise
Michelson-Pease-Pearson also got their best result at Mt. Wilson.
Miller addressed this consideration in the 1933 paper, and
Michelson-Morley were also aware of their own slight positive result,
stating in the 1887 paper the need to perform the experiment over other
seasonal periods -- which they never did. Only Miller did so. The
fact that all four seasonal epochs of the Mt. Wilson experiments
yielded similar sidereal-hour vectors for the axis of drift, and that
this also was the same (though reduced) axis which could be extracted
from the original Michelson-Morley experiment, is THE significant
consideration, even if the velocity determinations were slightly
variable. This is what we call a highly-structured pattern in the
data. The fact that Galaev later found a similar axis of drift in his
work, and the seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" also show a
similar pattern, is "icing on the cake" so to speak.

5) High "signal to noise" ratios plague other data sets from natural
phenomena, such as climate patterns. Daily precipitation is a function
of solar heating and shifting of wind and pressure patterns. But if we
look for variations in precipitation as an indicator of solar heating,
it requires a lot of years of data before we get a climatic curve which
approximates the smooth latitudinal shifting of the sun's location, and
hence, solar heating of the lower atmosphere. Over shorter periods,
rainfall quantities may be extremely variable with large quantities one
day or week, nothing the next day or week, and so on over the years,
with some years very wet, others in drought. If we presume ignorance
of how solar heating works to stimulate rains, we would be hard pressed
to find this pattern in all the "noise" of daily precipitation
variation. We would in fact only find the pattern by recording
precipitation over the year, and then averaging the data by week or
month. Only then, you get a pattern which is valuable, and allows some
degree of confidence and prediction of when a "rainy season" or "dry
season" will occur. Likewise also, I would imagine, with the
determinations of anisotropy in 3-deg.K. in open space -- a lot of
variation, no way to make "statistical analysis" but when it is plotted
on a map -- or along a simple graphical ordination representing
sidereal hour -- it makes a pattern which is important to consider.

As noted, I do have copies of all of Miller's data sheets, being the
guy who stimilated their re-discovery from dusty storage rooms. You
mention only the one data sheet of Figure 8 from his 1933 paper, which
showed the results of 19 turns of the interferometer over about a
15-minute period.
This is like, extracting rainfall records for one
month of one year, exclaiming there is "no solar-related pattern" and
ignoring all the rainfall data from many other months and years. Sure,
look at only one data sheet, and clear determinations may be
insufficient. But really, your DSP analysis was not of that data
sheet, nor of the hundreds of other data sheets from Mt. Wilson.


I have no interests to second-guess Miller's methods, and your claims
really don't suggest any serious reason why one should be concerned.
Nobody including Michelson had any problem with Miller's methods or
findings at the time when he was doing his work, other than Einstein,
who was no expert in the ether-drift methods. In fact Miller was the
student of Morley, and learned the methods as handed down from
Michelson and Michelson-Morley. You presume to have us believe you
know more about it than they did, even though you haven't undertaken an
analysis of the very same published data from which Miller's
conclusions were derived. And all the other validating experiments,
you simply ignore. Sorry to say, this is simply insufficient.

Regards,

James DeMeo


Roberts refused to use the all important 1925/1926 papers which did prove the ether drift.

As such his analysis is totally useless.


As for the second paper you presented here, by Dr. Paulo Correa, Dr. Dayton Miller already addressed the issues a long time ago:

Miller's observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced "...a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics...for azimuth and magnitude... as though they were related to a common cause... The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."

(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)


« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 02:40:05 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #46 on: October 30, 2017, 02:08:35 AM »
Dr. Dayton Miller's detection of ether drift stands correct.

The best ever ether drift experiment, performed by Dr. Yuri Galaev, proves the existence of ether waves beyond a shadow of a doubt.

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/EtherDrift/Galaev2.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://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.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


You lose.


YOUR FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE GALAEV EXPERIMENTS MEANS YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR DEFEAT.



How about instead of pointing to a few experiments, address all the others which get the same result, no aether wind.

I have already addressed your links, each and everyone of them.

THEY FAIL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT AND THE CAHILL CRITERION.

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212

While Kennedy, Illingworth, Stahel and Joos had no idea about the Atsukovsky effect, the authors of the other light isotropy experiments performed recently in time have no excuse.

There is also another aspect worth noticing when using vacuum chamber ether drift experiments.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

In the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment, listed by you, the authors are using the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model based on Lorentz transformations, as such useless to detect any ether drift. Moreover, they are using metallic chambers during the experiment, exactly the problem detected by Dr. Dayton Miller.


Here is more technical proof that an ether drift experiment performed in vacuum will nullify the final results: an effect you had no knowledge of.

In vacuum YOU HAVE TO use either torsion, pressure, sound or electricity to detect ether.





Can you now understand the utter fallacy of your statement:

Typical excuse by aether advocates, the 10^-17 level could easily detect the anistropy of the speed of light to the proximity of the MGP experiment for consistent results, but didn't. The increased sensitivity renders an inconsistency between MGP and these aether detection experiments.

Not even if they go to 10^-30, nothing will be detected for the reasons explained above.

Michelson, Pease and Pearson measured an ether drift amouning to 6km/s.

You lose.


YOUR FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT AND THE CAHILL CRITERION MEANS YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR DEFEAT.

Your shallow research has been debunked.

Take a look at your twisted logic, a sure sign of cognitive dissonance:

This point fails to work here since your alternative provides a high vulnerability to detecting a diurnal variation. Even Miller acknowledged this.


The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)

The MG experiment cannot be used either in favor of geocentrism or of heliocentrism.

The tests were made on thirteen different days with a total of 269
observations, almost always with the same results. The lowest value for
the displacement in the fringes was 0.193 while the highest was 0.255
with the mean displacement coming in at 0.230. Thus, right before
Michelson’s own eyes, the 1913 Sagnac results were confirmed and his
1887 interpretation was put in question, as was Relativity. Here was
further proof, to the order of ten times the power of the Sagnac
experiment, that there is, indeed, an absolute space in which absolute
rotation occurs. Something was affecting the light in order for it to
consistently produce the fringe displacement.

The Galaev experiment however directly proves the existence of ether in a most conclusive way.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 09:07:05 AM by sandokhan »

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #47 on: October 30, 2017, 03:25:53 AM »
Dr. Dayton Miller's detection of ether drift stands correct.
Nope, your BS aether still remains refuted.

Until you can provide a rational argument (not just copied and pasted BS), which addresses the observations which are contradictory under the aether hypothesis, it remains firmly refuted.

Can you explain how Earth is both stationary w.r.t. the aether and moving w.r.t. the aether? Until you do, the aether remains refuted.

Your BS about electronic levitation is completely irrelevant.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #48 on: October 30, 2017, 03:57:32 AM »
The orbital Sagnac effect is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.

The solar gravitational potential effect upon the GPS clocks is also missing:

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


This means that the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT are totally fulfilled:

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


The Ruderfer experiment, one of the most important experiments in physics carried out in the 20th century, proves the existence of ether, if its hypotheses are fulfilled.


Faced with the Ruderfer experiment, the relativists resorted to one last stand, the MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory): the Earth rotates against the spherical shell of ether, while at the same time both the Earth and the ether orbit the Sun.


However, the results of the classic 1881 Michelson experiment show very clearly that the Earth does not rotate with respect to the spherical shell of ether.


The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #49 on: October 30, 2017, 04:00:15 AM »
The orbital Sagnac effect is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.
BS and irrelevant.
Deal with the topic at hand or shut up.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #50 on: October 30, 2017, 04:08:34 AM »
altspace, now you are going to have to deal with the Ruderfer experiment.

So far you have failed to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

In fact, you showed here in front of everybody the full panoply of your inadequate understanding of physics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977159#msg1977159


Here is what altspace wrote:

I don't even have to calculate to know your "the sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation" is wrong. The orbital vs rotational sagnac has the same speed of light and same area enclosed by the path, the only think left is the angular velocity of the rotation and you get dt.

The full debunking of your statement, complete with calculations and papers published in several prestigious mainstream journals which acknowledge that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977193#msg1977193


Faced with the undeniable facts, you gave up on debating the orbital Sagnac effect.

But it doesn't work like that.


In addition, the orbital solar gravitational potential is not being registered either by the GPS satellites' clocks.

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


Thus, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are totally 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.


Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.


A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

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.

Do I have to mention that you lose, again?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 09:05:33 AM by sandokhan »

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #51 on: October 30, 2017, 05:02:11 AM »
altspace, now you are going to have to deal with the Ruderfer experiment.
No. No one has to deal with that unless you want to start your own topic.
This thread is for discussing aether and the contradiction it leads to.
Can you offer anything in rebuttal?
If not, SHUT UP!

So far you have failed to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
Again, irrelevant.
Deal with the topic at hand.
If you really want, then you can start a new thread on your ignorance of the Sagnac effect and I can hand your ass to you yet again.

I have lost count of how many times you have been shown to be full of shit regarding the Sagnac effect.
Stop bringing up your pathetic failures as if you haven't been completely destroyed.

You are the loser here, not us.
Until you are able to make a rational rebuttal of the OP, which actually addresses what the OP says, you lose.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #52 on: October 30, 2017, 05:24:40 AM »
You are totally detached from reality, a medical condition which is even worse than cognitive dissonance.

Here is again the total demolition of your failed piece of shit analysis.

jack has committed a monumental error in his derivation.

Of course, nothing else could have been expected of him.

He practically threw out the most basic requirement of the Sagnac effect.


What is the center of rotation for the orbit of the earth?

Here is the equation.

∆t = 4πRv / ( c˛ - v˛) = 4Aω / ( c˛ - v˛)

Where A = πR˛ and v = ωR

So, it is easy to calculate the orbital sagnac is more than 60 times that of the rotational.

But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Mathpages says you must use the center of rotation which is the sun.


Are there situations where the location of the center of rotation can be overlooked? Sure, but the rotational Sagnac and the orbital Sagnac are not among them.

In fact, the rotational Sagnac is calculated exactly as described above: using a circular loop.

But the same requirement is to be fulfilled in the case of the orbital Sagnac.



http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth supposedly moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.


"Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Yet, this same logic applies and works with the earth's supposed rotation.


jack does not understand this very basic fact of science, and has proceeded to construct his very own version of the Universe.

Let us see what happens when one disregards the basic facts of science.


jack's own words:

And thus:
dto/dtr=k*wo/k*wr=wo/wo=1/365.

Just like I said.
I also backed up this formula with my own derivation.


jack claims that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac, and that, read carefully: "I also backed up this formula with my own derivation."

Using his own very words, jack is telling us that his derivation leads directly to this figure: 1/365.


Here is another quote now:

This is the correct calculation:
Δto/Δt r=[4Aiωo/( c˛ - vo˛)] / [4Aiωr/( c˛ - vr˛)]

Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth. It is the area of the interferometer, as my derivation.

No where in any derivation did the area of Earth's orbit come into it.

So to continue:
Δto/Δt r=[4Aiωo/( c˛ - vo˛)] / [4Aiωr/( c˛ - vr˛)]
Obviously, ( c˛ - vo˛) and ( c˛ - vr˛) are very close to the same number, so let's lave them off.
=4Aiωo/ 4Aiωr
Then to simplify:
o/ ωr

And would you look at that? It ends up being just like what we claim.
You have ωo/ ωr.
As Earth rotates roughly 365 times for each orbit, ωr=365*ωo.
Thus we get:
Δto/Δt ro/ ωr
o/ (365*ωo)
=1/365

Just like we claim.



A very clear claim based on jack's derivation.

These are his own very words.


He claims that the derivation, as shown above, leads to the figure 1/365.


And he says that he bases his entire derivation on this: Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth.

This hypothesis, in turn, jack claims leads to this conclusion:

=1/365

Just like we claim.



jack simply threw out the basic requirement that the orbital Sagnac is a circular loop, and reached the conclusion that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.


Let us put jack's claims to a real test.


Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/



Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v^2/c^2
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v^2/c^2∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


The author PROVED that the orbital Sagnac is 10,000 times greater than the rotational Sagnac, and the peer reviewers agree totally.


It was published in one of the most respected journals in the world.


Both claims cannot be true at the same time, right?


The derivation's conclusion is that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.

The mainstream papers published by these respected journals prove that the orbital Sagnac is 10,000 greater than the rotational Sagnac.



That is what is totally wrong with your derivation.


You are off by a factor of 3,650,000!


Why are you off by such a huge factor?

Because of the wrong application of the Sagnac formula.


∆t = 4πRv / ( c˛ - v˛) = 4Aω / ( c˛ - v˛)

Where A = πR˛ and v = ωR

But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Mathpages says you must use the center of rotation which is the sun.



Our friend jack brushed aside this requirement to impose his will on everybody else:

Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth. (jack's own very words)

In this particular case, the orbital path of the Earth, YOU MUST USE THE CORRECT RADIUS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A CORRECT RESULT.


jack's dismissal of basic scientific facts led to this monumentally erroneous conclusions, using his own words:

=1/365

Just like we claim.



In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v^2/c^2
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v^2/c^2∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



PUBLISHED BY THE BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most respected journals in the world.


Dr. C.C. Su proves that the correct figure is at least 10,000.


jack's catastrophic interpretation of the Sagnac effect leads to a figure of 1/365.


Let us see by how much jack went wrong.


10,000/(1/365) = 3,650,000

A huge margin of error, just what we would expect of someone like jack: he practically disregarded the most basic requirement of the Sagnac effect applied to the orbital case.


There is nothing else to discuss here.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #53 on: October 30, 2017, 05:31:12 AM »
altspace, it seems that your trying to make sense of curved space, has only warped your mind.

Now, I am going to rip into shredds your favorite subject: the spacetime continuum hoax.

Few people (including, obviously, yourself) know that spacetime was conjured up by using a simple sponge and a piece of chalk.

H. Minkowski simply erased the x4 variable in Riemann's n-dimensional geometry and replaced with t (time).


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


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’.


There is no such thing as the spacetime continuum.



*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #54 on: October 30, 2017, 05:54:04 AM »
Then you have a poor understanding of physics, in particular you do not understand the Sagnac effect.
No, that is you that still can't get Sagnac right!

Quote from: sandokhan
Let me explain.
The orbital Sagnac and the rotational Sagnac DO NOT and CANNOT have the same area enclosed by the path.
But the centre of rotation of the Sagnac loop is totally irrelevant!

Quote from: sandokhan
What is the center of rotation for the orbit of the earth?
Who cares, i is irrelevant! All that matters is the angular velocity, as your equation below states, with ∆t = 4Aω / ( c2 - v2).
Look mummy, no centre of rotation mentioned!
Quote from: sandokhan
Here is the equation.
∆t = 4πRv / ( c˛ - v˛) = 4Aω / ( c˛ - v˛)
Where A = πR˛ and v = ωR
So, it is easy to calculate the orbital sagnac is more than 60 times that of the rotational.
But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".
But mathpages just uses a circular loop for simplicity. The loop does not have to be circular and the centre of rotation is not relevant.

Quote from: sandokhan
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Mathpages says one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.
No, it does not say anywhere that "one must use the center of rotation which is the sun".

Quote from: sandokhan
It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.
Rubbish, there are numerous references that prove that the shape of the loop and the centre of rotation are irrelevant!
Please point out exactly where maths Pages, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect ever states that, "one must use the center of rotation which is the sun"?

It does state, "The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification."

You might also read:
          Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) – Published 1 April 1967
Where Post reviews some of the Sagnac experiments and states:

Note that this too states, "in which A is the area enclosed by the loop"

And further on in Section III. General Aspects of the Theory, near end p. 478
Quote
Summarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.

Please note that he specifically states, "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"

Now stop re-posting yhe same old complete crap.  Your pages and pages of repeated garbage don't impress anyone.

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2017, 06:02:01 AM »
Please note that:
There is no such thing as the spacetime continuum.
According to sandokhan, who also says that
Quote
Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago;
while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier,
after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.
and that the sun is about 15 km above the earth!

Do you really think that any sane person would take the slightest notice of one word you said?

;D ;D ;D Yes, I know you can prove every word of it! ;D ;D ;D

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #56 on: October 30, 2017, 06:03:12 AM »
And all analyses end up with results where only the area appears.

Exactly.

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r˛ = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR˛ω/(c˛-v˛)


Please show exactly where Mathpages, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect claims that!

The equation for the sagnac is:

4Aω/( c˛ - v˛)

One must calculatate the area swept out by the path and that is A = πR˛, where R is measured from the Sun to the center of the Earth (radius of the orbital path loop).

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R...


Mathpages says one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.

It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.


Sagnac also established that the effect does not depend on the shape of the loop or the center of rotation.

Certainly there are cases where this theory applies, but the rotational Sagnac and the orbital Sagnac effects are NOT two of them.

Both the rotational and the orbital Sagnac effect use the definition provided in mathpages:

"circular loop of radius R"

One must use the center of rotation which is the sun.

It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.


You haven't read the paper by E.J. Post.

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 papers published by Dr. C.C. Su and by Dr. Daniel Gezari agree exactly with me.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS


Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.


The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


The MISSING SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL deals another huge blow to heliocentricity.

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

Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.

In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.

On the other hand, the time dilation effect of the solar
gravitational field on the atomic clocks orbiting with
Earth round the Sun, which is predicted by GR but not
observed, is a highly precise observation. It exceeds by
orders of magnitude the experimental precision and
hence is infinitely more reliable. If the orbital motion of
Earth round the Sun suppresses the time dilation due to
the solar gravitational field and moreover does not show
the predicted relativistic time dilation due to this orbital
motion
, then it seems reasonable that a clock in a satellite
orbiting round the Earth in a direct equatorial orbit or in a
jet flying round the Earth too should give no evidence of
such a relativistic time dilation. The relativistic time dilation
alleged in both these round the world Sagnac experiments
is in clear and frontal contradiction with the
absence of such a relativistic time dilation effect in the
case of the orbiting Earth round the Sun.

Thus, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are totally 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.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #57 on: October 30, 2017, 06:14:30 AM »
I always provide proofs for my statements.

Here is the Gauss easter formula being applied to the chronology of history, in particular the dating of the council of Nicaea:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

Pompeii and Herculaneum, cities in full activity in the 18th century:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages)


ISS/Atlantis videos: VENUS/MERCURY/HUBBLE SOLAR TRANSITS

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025


By the way, you forgot to mention that I discovered the global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #58 on: October 30, 2017, 01:17:32 PM »
You are totally detached from reality, a medical condition which is even worse than cognitive dissonance.
Once again, describing yourself.

Here is again the total demolition of your failed piece of shit analysis.
You are yet to honestly deal with my analysis. You have repeatedly failed to answer any of my questions or show any error in my derivation.
Regardless, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, now deal with the OP or shut up.

If you would like to remind the board of how I handed your ass to you repeatedly, here are some links to the thread where I did so:
There is this post, where I derived the sagnac effect, which you were completely unable to refute.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915658#msg1915658
There is this one, where instead of the full, math heavy derivation, I provided a simple explanation of how you were wrong:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915660#msg1915660

Here is where you basically just copied verbatim someone else's derivation, and then ignored the fact that it would require the interferometer to be the size of the orbit of Earth rather than a small interferometer on Earth, and instead of refuting me, you basically further backed up my case:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1915720#msg1915720


But you just keep on ignoring the facts and making the same mistakes.
Even in the post of mine you quoted, I showed you were completely full of shit:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1916393#msg1916393
And you were completely unable to refute it.

In fact, you were unable to even answer a simple question, with a repeated asking of it resulting in you running away like a pathetic coward.
With me asking it again and again, with the last time being here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1916969#msg1916969
And then you never responding again.

But here you are again, bringing up your pathetic failures. Do you want everyone on the forums to know you have no way to honestly defend your claims, that all you can do is insult people and just spout massive amounts of bullshit?


Do I need to ask it again, as you seem to be making up the same BS here yet again.
Do you need an interferometer, centred on the sun, the size of Earth's orbit to detect Earth's orbital sagnac effect?
Yes or no?

Your BS claims seem to be indicating it.

One must calculatate the area swept out by the path and that is A = πR˛, where R is measured from the Sun to the center of the Earth (radius of the orbital path loop).
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R...


So, who has constructed a loop interferometer which is the size of Earth's orbit which is centred on the sun?
If someone hasn't, how can you claim the orbital Sagnac effect is missing, as by your claims, that is what you need.

Now then like I said before, if you want to deal with your ignorance of the Sagnac effect in regards to how it applies to Earth's orbital vs rotational motion, start a new thread. Don't derail this thread just so you can have your ass handed to you again in that regard.

I always provide proofs for my statements.
No. You provided mountains and mountains of crap to try and avoid getting your ass handed to you.

Now then, can you deal with the OP?
If not, SHUT UP!!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4051
Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2017, 01:25:30 PM »
The links provided by altspace reveal the superficiality of his research, and the fake science he is so fond of.

According to a study done with telescopes observing radio waves bear the sun, the deflection of radio waves by the sun precisely, and it confirmed the general relativity prediction of bent space time to a high degree (within 0.03 %), here it is as published in the Astrophysical journal:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992

But the team of Kopeikin and Fomalont committed a huge error in a similar study.

And that study also used VLBA.

A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) says the announcement by two scientists, widely reported this past January, about the speed of gravity was wrong.

Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, has demonstrated that an “ill-advised” assumption made in the earlier claim led to an unwarranted conclusion.

“In effect, the experiment was measuring effects associated with the propagation of light, not the speed of gravity.”

According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, light and gravity travel at the same speed, about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. Most scientists believe this is true, but the assumption was that it could only be proven through the detection of gravity waves. Sergei Kopeikin, a University of Missouri physicist, and Edward Fomalont, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), believed there was an alternative.

On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar’s radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter.

To measure the delay, Fomalont set up an interferometry system using the NRAO’s Very Long Baseline Array, a group of ten 25-meter radio telescopes distributed across the continental United States, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, plus the 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Kopeikin then took the data and calculated velocity-dependent effects. His calculations appeared to show that the speed at which gravity was being propagated from Jupiter matched the speed of light to within 20 percent. The scientists announced their findings in January at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Samuel argues that Kopeikin erred when he based his calculations on Jupiter’s position at the time the quasar’s radio waves reached Earth rather than the position of Jupiter when the radio waves passed by that planet.

Samuel was able to simplify the calculations of the velocity-dependent effects by shifting from a reference frame in which Jupiter is moving, as was used by Kopeikin, to a reference frame in which Jupiter is stationary and Earth is moving. When he did this, Samuel found a formula that differed from the one used by Kopeikin to analyze the data. Under this new formula, the velocity-dependent effects were considerably smaller. Even though Fomalont was able to measure a time delay of about 5 trillionths of a second, this was not nearly sensitive enough to measure the actual gravitational influence of Jupiter.

“With the correct formula, the effects of the motion of Jupiter on the quasar-signal time-delay are at least 100 times and perhaps even a thousand times smaller than could have been measured by the array of radio telescopes that Fomalont used,” Samuel says. “There’s a reasonable chance that such measurements might one day be used to define the speed of gravity, but they just aren’t doable with our current technology.”


Next, altspace showed that he has no knowledge of REAL SCIENCE.

This lensing effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general relativity.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/amp/

The title of the article is:

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Again, here are altspace's own words:

This lensing effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general relativity.

But BOTH the 1919 and the 1922 solar eclipses investigations WERE FAKED to promote Einstein.

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.

There can be no more clear definition of hoax than what went on in the Tropics back in May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.


But altspace informed his readers that: "...verifying the predictions of general relativity."


Next altspace confirmed that he has no real knowledge of the links he provides to his readers.

Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this by  comparing clocks of planes flying east and west and a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and found an inconsistency. These clocks were cesium beam atomic clocks. Here's where you can obtain the published paper on it:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/166

This is a confirmation of general relativity.

But Hafele and Keating FAKED THEIR ENTIRE SET OF DATA.

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

Dr. A.G. Kelly requested the actual test results that "gave figures that were radically altered from the published results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified."


altspace's own words:

Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this

This is a confirmation of general relativity.


FAKE SCIENCE, in altspace's view, becomes valid data.


Then, altspace informed his readers that the following experiments are, in his view, proofs of a null result for ether drift.

Kennedy[14]   Pasadena/Mt. Wilson   1926   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.002   35   ∼ 5 km/s   0.002   yes
Illingworth[15]   Pasadena   1927   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.0004   175   ∼ 2 km/s   0.0004   yes
Piccard & Stahel[19]   with a Balloon   1926   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.006   20   ∼ 7 km/s   0.006   yes
Piccard & Stahel[20]   Brussels   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0002   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Piccard & Stahel[21]   Rigi   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0003   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Michelson et al.[22]   Mt. Wilson   1929   25.9   0.9   ≤ 0.01   90   ∼ 3 km/s   0.01   yes
Joos[16]   Jena   1930   21.0   0.75   ≤ 0.002   375   ∼ 1.5 km/s   0.002   yes

But these were VERY POORLY PERFORMED experiments which used metallic chambers to detect ether drift, which led to the discovery of the Atsukovsky effect.

Dr. Dayton Miller specified quite clearly:


"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesirable
while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212


Is it just by coincidence that altspace seems to be hooked on FAKE SCIENCE and FAKE EXPERIMENTS to justify his whimsical belief in spacetime curvature?


Next he proceeded to inform his viewers of more links, this time using light isotropy tests.

How about instead of pointing to a few experiments, address all the others which get the same result, no aether wind.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..133.1221J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T
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
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.060402
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..95d0404S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvD..74h1101S

In the first paper, Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, the authors of the paper committed a grave omission, failing to take into account the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf

In the second paper, signed Trimmer and Baierlein, the authors made a horrendous error, subsequently having to withdraw their article.



And yet altspace told us that: "which get the same result, no aether wind."

The third paper included another huge error: the omission of the Cahill criterion.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Here is more technical proof that an ether drift experiment performed in vacuum will nullify the final results: an effect altspace had no knowledge of.

In vacuum YOU HAVE TO use either torsion, pressure, sound or electricity to detect ether.





All of the other experiments also used cryogenic oscillators in vacuum chambers, thereby nullifying the very test they were attempting to verify.

Can altspace now understand the utter fallacy of his statement:

Typical excuse by aether advocates, the 10^-17 level could easily detect the anistropy of the speed of light to the proximity of the MGP experiment for consistent results, but didn't. The increased sensitivity renders an inconsistency between MGP and these aether detection experiments.

Not even if they go to 10^-30, nothing will be detected for the reasons explained above.


altspace, you have relied upon FALSE SCIENCE and FAKE EXPERIMENTS to draw your opinion as to the existence of ether drift tests. In one instance you provided a paper which was subsequently withdrawn by the authors, having committed a stupendous error. Yet you told your readers that everything is fine, and that they should trust you. They will not trust you anymore, you can rest assured.

Here is the real deal, the Galaev ether drift experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72517.msg1977535#msg1977535


« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 01:33:14 PM by sandokhan »