Geocentric Earth model and Aether

  • 328 Replies
  • 4797 Views
*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #300 on: June 26, 2020, 05:51:36 AM »
Quote
So the rebuttal was reviewed and accepted, but Engelhartd's second rebuttal was NOT reviewed or formally accepted.

So only 1. One was accepted? And rebbutal is also accepted? So who is right?

Only the last entry had an editors note talking about how they were publishing his answer in the spirit of "liberty of expression and of discussion".

The other two papers, and most papers published don't have an editors note explaining why they are printing it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327118072_Classical_and_Relativistic_Derivation_of_the_Sagnac_Effect_-_answer_to_Sfarti's_paper

To answer who is right, I bring up again the fact that you can find thousands of papers in reputable journals in support of Relativity, and thousands of references to GPS using Relativity, and only one that claims that everyone else is wrong.  Plus GPS works.  If it failed to take into account major measurements, it wouldn't work.

This is a lot of discussion about ONE guy and his paper, when literally thousands of other papers contradict it.  Plus all the experiments, evidence and the fact that I have a GPS in my hand right now that works fine.

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #301 on: June 26, 2020, 06:02:42 AM »
I simply accept that exactly the same thing holds the oceans on the Globe as holds you and I on the Globe.
Have you lost your freaking mind?
Not at all!
Why would you expect a different thing to be holding "the oceans on the Globe as holds you and I on the Globe?"

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation as to how trillion of billions of tons of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere?
Either Newtonian gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - what else is needed.

And if you are still looking for a mechanism you seem to have already provided it with the Quantum entanglement mechanism for gravitation.

I fail to see your problem.

Quote from: Brian Swinglea and Mark Van Raamsdonk
Universality of Gravity from Entanglement
Abstract
The entanglement “first law” in conformal field theories relates the entanglement entropy for a ball-shaped region to an integral over the same region involving the expectation value of the CFT stress-energy tensor, for infinitesimal perturbations to the CFT vacuum state. In recent work, this was exploited at leading order in N in the context of large N holographic CFTs to show that any geometry dual to a perturbed CFT state must satisfy Einstein’s equations linearized about pure AdS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field.
So you now accept Einstein’s equations and Newtonian Gravitation. That's a start at least.

Quote from: sandokhan
Entanglement requires traversable wormholes.
You must remember that it's still just "theoretical" and not yet supported by a great deal of evidence but I did find this.

But note that none of those serves to refute either Newtonian Gravitation or Einstein's gravitation and what this work does is to provided the mechanism for Einstein's curved spacetime.

Quote from: Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
Quantum entanglement is one of the more bizarre theories to come out of the study of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once — a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.

But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is where quantum entanglement could play a role. It might appear that the concept of entanglement — one of the most fundamental in quantum mechanics — is in direct conflict with general relativity: Two entangled particles, “communicating” across vast distances, would have to do so at speeds faster than that of light — a violation of the laws of physics, according to Einstein. It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.
This seems very much along the lines of Erik Verlinde's entropic and both the MIT article and his work write of these ideas as "reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #302 on: June 26, 2020, 06:26:19 AM »
Let's see how this creep tried to knowingly lie to his audience.

Do you mean this equation? t = t', r = r', φ = φ' + ωEt', z = z'.              (3)
Stop joking, that's not transforming any time!
It quite clearly reads: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE".

In the "transformation" you referred to Ashby was not transforming any time at all.
Read what Ashby wrote: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE" - in that there is no time transformation at all.

Ashby is not transforming time at all so he didn't use any time transformation!

Can't you understand the meaning of simple words like these: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE"
There is NO transformation of time involved at all!

Ashby is not transforming any time so he simply equates the times!

Of course I can recognise the Galilean transformations? Why are they relevant?

Now, the full extent of rabinoz' treachery will be exposed in plain sight.

Here is how he lies to his readers:


Quote from: sandokhan
It turned out that Ashby was NOT USING RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS from one frame of reference to another, but GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

So, who knows GR better? Hatch or Ashby?
When can you face this simple point?
Ashby was not doing any transformation involving time, just changing the rotation so, of course, he didn't "USE RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS".

Here is the source copied by Ashby, the paper published in 1937 by Langevin:



In spite of its claimed ‘relativistic’ nature the 1937 calculation was in fact based on a purely Galilean transformation of the invariant interval relation, in cylindical coordinates with z constant, in an inertial frame:

into a uniformly rotating one via the Galilean transformation equations:
r′ = r, t′ = t, θ′ = θ + ωt


This is exactly what Ashby did!

*

Stash

  • 4712
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #303 on: June 26, 2020, 02:18:30 PM »
Let's see how this creep tried to knowingly lie to his audience.

Do you mean this equation? t = t', r = r', φ = φ' + ωEt', z = z'.              (3)
Stop joking, that's not transforming any time!
It quite clearly reads: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE".

In the "transformation" you referred to Ashby was not transforming any time at all.
Read what Ashby wrote: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE" - in that there is no time transformation at all.

Ashby is not transforming time at all so he didn't use any time transformation!

Can't you understand the meaning of simple words like these: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE"
There is NO transformation of time involved at all!

Ashby is not transforming any time so he simply equates the times!

Of course I can recognise the Galilean transformations? Why are they relevant?

Now, the full extent of rabinoz' treachery will be exposed in plain sight.

Here is how he lies to his readers:


Quote from: sandokhan
It turned out that Ashby was NOT USING RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS from one frame of reference to another, but GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

So, who knows GR better? Hatch or Ashby?
When can you face this simple point?
Ashby was not doing any transformation involving time, just changing the rotation so, of course, he didn't "USE RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS".

Here is the source copied by Ashby, the paper published in 1937 by Langevin:



In spite of its claimed ‘relativistic’ nature the 1937 calculation was in fact based on a purely Galilean transformation of the invariant interval relation, in cylindical coordinates with z constant, in an inertial frame:

into a uniformly rotating one via the Galilean transformation equations:
r′ = r, t′ = t, θ′ = θ + ωt


This is exactly what Ashby did!

Wow, you do know how to use the quote system. I guess only when insulting someone, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

You never answered my question. You seem to be fully on board with GPS satellites orbiting the earth. So are you now a Globe Geocentrist?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #304 on: June 26, 2020, 05:27:12 PM »
In this thread you need to justify your 24 ns.
In this thread, you have failed to provide a reference which denies the formula/figures that have been published.
Again, I wouldn't call having crap produced in a predatory journal "published".

You have nothing more than a baselessly asserted number.
That means you lose.

If you want to appeal to scientific authority, that means accepting the fact that Earth is round, rotates on its axis and orbits the sun.
You have shown no willingness to accept this authority. Instead you repeatedly reject it and say all these scientists are wrong.
That means you don't get to appeal to authority.
Either you do so in general and accept it all, or that authority is worthless.

Now care to justify that number?
It's right in the paper.
The 24 ns number is, the justification is not.
That is what you need to provide, the justification for that number.

Now again, care to provide the justification?
The full calculation, showing all steps?

If not, you lose.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #305 on: June 26, 2020, 09:16:36 PM »
STFU you clown.

I have the reference which clearly provides the formula and the figure.

You got nothing.

If you disagree, provide a reference which denies that calculation/derivation.

If you cannot, you lose big.

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #306 on: June 27, 2020, 03:59:11 PM »
I have the reference which clearly provides the formula and the figure.
You have something posted to the internet which has A formula, a formula where you can't simply stick in numbers, as it is for a constant U, not a varying one, and a baselessly asserted number.

That is effectively nothing.
So you still have nothing.

So the burden of proof remains on you.
Provide the derivation, showing all steps along the way, to clearly show where these 24 ns came from.

And again, you repeatedly reject authority of scientists as you reject Earth being round, rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun.
Either accept the authority of scientists and thus accept that Earth is round, rotates on its axis and orbits the sun and thus the discussion is over, or reject it and thus stop appealing to anything even remotely resembling scientific publishers or their authority and provide the derivation yourself.

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #307 on: June 27, 2020, 04:37:43 PM »
Let's see how this creep tried to knowingly lie to his audience.
Is all you can do post insults a and repeat your same garbage?

In the "transformation" you referred to Ashby was not transforming any time at all.
Read what Ashby wrote: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE" - in that there is no time transformation at all.
Can't you read plain English?

I'm getting more and more certain that you haven't the slightest real understanding of the papers you copy-n-paste.
You just seem to cherry-pick a few words that fit your narrative and spout those.

For example you quote bits of those Quantum entanglement papers but skip over bits like these little bits that connect it with Newtonian Gravitation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity:
Quote from: Brian Swinglea and Mark Van Raamsdonk
must satisfy Einstein’s equations linearized about pure AdS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field.
And:
Quote from: Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.

How can you blithely dismiss Newton and Einstein after reading that?

Here is a bit more from them?
Quote from: Brian Swinglea and Mark Van Raamsdonk
Universality of Gravity from Entanglement
Abstract
The entanglement “first law” in conformal field theories relates the entanglement entropy for a ball-shaped region to an integral over the same region involving the expectation value of the CFT stress-energy tensor, for infinitesimal perturbations to the CFT vacuum state. In recent work, this was exploited at leading order in N in the context of large N holographic CFTs to show that any geometry dual to a perturbed CFT state must satisfy Einstein’s equations linearized about pure AdS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote from: Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
Quantum entanglement is one of the more bizarre theories to come out of the study of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once — a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.

But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is where quantum entanglement could play a role. It might appear that the concept of entanglement — one of the most fundamental in quantum mechanics — is in direct conflict with general relativity: Two entangled particles, “communicating” across vast distances, would have to do so at speeds faster than that of light — a violation of the laws of physics, according to Einstein. It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.
This seems very much along the lines of Erik Verlinde's entropic gravity and both the MIT article and his work write of these ideas as "reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and General Relativity".



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #308 on: June 27, 2020, 09:27:22 PM »
You have something posted to the internet which has A formula, a formula where you can't simply stick in numbers, as it is for a constant U, not a varying one, and a baselessly asserted number.

That is effectively nothing.
So you still have nothing.


I have the figure: 24ns which has to be detected, yet it is not.

It has been published in a scientific journal, and has been peer reviewed.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT clearly proves this figure and the additional solar gravitational potential effect (perihelion/aphelion) to be absolutely true.

So you lose on all counts.

GPS/VLBI form a large scale spinning Mossbauer experiment.

Thus 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.


Second, as Charles M. Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

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.

"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.

What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.

Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."


Let us apply now Ruderfer's experiment to GPS.

Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. 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.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

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.



Second, as Charles M. Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.

*

sokarul

  • 17472
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #309 on: June 27, 2020, 11:01:05 PM »
"Moving clock tick slower" is from special relativity. Clocks running slower in a stronger gravitational field is general relativity.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #310 on: June 28, 2020, 12:27:56 AM »
You have something posted to the internet which has A formula, a formula where you can't simply stick in numbers, as it is for a constant U, not a varying one, and a baselessly asserted number.

That is effectively nothing.
So you still have nothing.


I have the figure: 24ns which has to be detected, yet it is not.

It has been published in a scientific journal, and has been peer reviewed.
Again I'm not JackBlack.
But it looks suspiciously as though you refuse to quote exactly where that 24 ns came from because you don't know - got that!

But, I repeat, the GPS does work to the specified accuracy and therefore all necessary effects have been allowed for.

So, again you still have nothing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #311 on: June 28, 2020, 01:08:19 AM »
Cut the crap you paid shill.

I have the reference which clearly spells out the correct figure.

This figure is corroborated by the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT clearly proves this figure and the additional solar gravitational potential effect (perihelion/aphelion) to be absolutely true.

So you lose on all counts.

GPS/VLBI form a large scale spinning Mossbauer experiment.

Thus 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.


Second, as Charles M. Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

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.

"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.

What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.

Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."


Let us apply now Ruderfer's experiment to GPS.

Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. 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.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

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.


Second, as Charles M. Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #312 on: June 28, 2020, 01:37:39 AM »
Cut the crap you paid shill.
I refuse to reply to one who dares address others like that! Get a civil tongue, thank you!

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #313 on: June 28, 2020, 04:11:56 AM »
I have the figure: 24ns which has to be detected, yet it is not.
Yes, you have that figure, but no justification for it.

It has been published in a scientific journal, and has been peer reviewed.
No, it has been published in a known predatory journal, not a scientific journal.
That was already pointed out.
Like I said before, you should try publishing your crap in there. They would probably take it.

Now again, care to provide the derivation of the 24 ns?
Otherwise you may as well have said 1 day or 1 ps.
Without a derivation, all the claims have the same weight, none at all.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #314 on: June 28, 2020, 04:14:13 AM »
The "predatory journal" figures are corroborated by the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT clearly proves this figure and the additional solar gravitational potential effect (perihelion/aphelion) to be absolutely true.

So you lose on all counts.

GPS/VLBI form a large scale spinning Mossbauer experiment.

Thus 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.


Second, as Charles M. Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.


Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

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.

"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.

What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.

Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."


Let us apply now Ruderfer's experiment to GPS.

Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. 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.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

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.


Second, as Charles M. Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #315 on: June 28, 2020, 04:27:26 AM »
The "predatory journal" figures are corroborated by the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.
And care to provide a link to this experiment?
Do you mean this one:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.5.191
Which is a purely HYPOTHETICAL experiment, which has not been carried out?
And which has an errata saying it was wrong?
And which has nothing at all to do with gravitational potential and instead is entirely to do with motion?

So your garbage is corroborated by a mistaken hypothetical experiment on a fundamentally different issue?

Do you actually understand what corroborated means?

And yet again, that is still appealing to authorities. Authorities which accept that Earth is round, rotate on its axis and orbits the sun.
If you want this to be based upon appeals to authority, you have already lost.

Now again, provide the derivation.

If you can't, stop pretending the figure is correct, as you have no actual justification for it at all.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #316 on: June 28, 2020, 04:37:30 AM »
No.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED.

No error at all.

The errata adds the ether drift NULL RESULT.

That is why the relativists were left without words when this experiment was published: should the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT be fulfilled that fact IMMEDIATELY PROVES THE EXISTECE OF ETHER.

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #317 on: June 28, 2020, 06:49:41 AM »
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED.

You have any reference to show this experiment was actually carried out?

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #318 on: June 28, 2020, 02:16:00 PM »
No.
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED.
Prove it.
Provide a reference for just when and where it was performed and the results obtained.

No error at all.
Really?
Is that why it says:
Quote
The theory of the PROPOSED experiment is incomplete because the first-order variation ...
The contraction theory therefore predicts a null effect as does relativity theory
Notice that it is only a proposed experiment, and that relativity and ether predict the same null result, making it impossible to use as a test for ether.

The errata adds the ether drift NULL RESULT.
To produce a "null result" identical to relativity and thus making it unable to distinguish between the 2.

Meaning even if it was performed, it still doesn't prove aether is real.

That means you have been caught lying about what your references say, yet again.
That is why you providing a reference is worthless.
You lie about your references so often there is no reason to trust that a reference backs you up.
Instead it seems far more likely that that reference actually refutes you.

It seems you can only find very loose support for your wild speculation in predatory journals rather than scientific ones.


Now again, where is your derivation for the 24 ns?

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #319 on: June 28, 2020, 03:21:56 PM »
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED.

You have any reference to show this experiment was actually carried out?
Maybe it was performed but Martin Ruderfer admitted it to be meaningless: ;D!
Quote from: Martin Ruderfer
FIRST-ORDER TERRESTRIAL ETHER DRIFT USING THE MOSSBAUER RADIATION by Martin Ruderfer, Phys. Rev. Letters 5, 191 (1960)
The theory of the proposed experiment is in-complete because the first-order variation of frequency with motion is not considered. In the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction theory, the frequency of a moving clock is f0(1 - w2/c2)1/2, where f0, is the frequency when the clock is at rest in the ether and w is its velocity through the ether.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The contraction theory therefore predicts a null effect as does relativity theory for a one-wayrotating terrestrial ether drift experiment.

Just like everything Sandokhan says when looked into deeply.

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #320 on: June 28, 2020, 04:13:48 PM »
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED.

You have any reference to show this experiment was actually carried out?
Maybe it was performed but Martin Ruderfer admitted it to be meaningless: ;D!
Quote from: Martin Ruderfer
FIRST-ORDER TERRESTRIAL ETHER DRIFT USING THE MOSSBAUER RADIATION by Martin Ruderfer, Phys. Rev. Letters 5, 191 (1960)
The theory of the proposed experiment is in-complete because the first-order variation of frequency with motion is not considered. In the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction theory, the frequency of a moving clock is f0(1 - w2/c2)1/2, where f0, is the frequency when the clock is at rest in the ether and w is its velocity through the ether.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The contraction theory therefore predicts a null effect as does relativity theory for a one-wayrotating terrestrial ether drift experiment.

Just like everything Sandokhan says when looked into deeply.

So it looks like it was never performed, and also was flawed to start with.... explaining why nobody bothered to perform it as far as I can find.

Searching the internet for RUDERFER EXPERIMENT pretty much just pulls up sando's posts.  :)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #321 on: June 28, 2020, 09:29:50 PM »
Notice that it is only a proposed experiment, and that relativity and ether predict the same null result, making it impossible to use as a test for ether.

No.

If the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled by VLBI interferometry, then ONLY THE ETHER DRIFT can explain it.

Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. 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.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.


Now, all of you here will become LOCAL-ETHER MODEL ADHERENTS.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC DELAY MEASURES 333 NS, an effect larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT, for GPS interferometry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

If R0 is parallel to vE it amounts 333 ns for a link of 1000 km.


Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #322 on: June 29, 2020, 01:35:28 AM »
Notice that it is only a proposed experiment, and that relativity and ether predict the same null result, making it impossible to use as a test for ether.

No.

If the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled by VLBI interferometry, then ONLY THE ETHER DRIFT can explain it.

Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. 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.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.


Now, all of you here will become LOCAL-ETHER MODEL ADHERENTS.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC DELAY MEASURES 333 NS, an effect larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT, for GPS interferometry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

If R0 is parallel to vE it amounts 333 ns for a link of 1000 km.


There is substantial scientific evidence that says:
There is no such thing as the aether.
The earth is a sphere
The earth orbits the sun
The sun is the centre of the solar system
The solar system is traveling through an aether free space along with the rest of our galaxy.

If we are going to use science let’s not cherry pick and let’s not just make things up.

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #323 on: June 29, 2020, 04:30:37 AM »
If the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled by VLBI interferometry, then ONLY THE ETHER DRIFT can explain it.
Appealing to a hypothetical doesn't help your case.
Ignoring the errata which clearly explains why the ether and relativity produce the same result doesn't help your case either.
It just shows you have none and don't care about the truth.

Again, relativity and ether produce the same result for that experiment.
That means that either can explain it.

Now again, where is the derivation of your 24 ns?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 04:38:26 AM by JackBlack »

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #324 on: June 29, 2020, 06:37:13 AM »
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED.

You have any reference to show this experiment was actually carried out?

Notice that it is only a proposed experiment, and that relativity and ether predict the same null result, making it impossible to use as a test for ether.

No.

If the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled by VLBI interferometry, then ONLY THE ETHER DRIFT can explain it.

So you are agreeing that the experiment WASN'T carried out?  If so, link the source to the results of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.

You're arguing based on a hypothesis that hasn't even been tested, and where we already saw references by Rudefer himself saying it was flawed?

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #325 on: Today at 12:22:33 AM »
I found out what sandokhan was doing with his insults

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

But globers did that too sometimes
« Last Edit: Today at 12:25:29 AM by Code-Beta1234 »

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #326 on: Today at 07:03:39 AM »
I found out what sandokhan was doing with his insults

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

But globers did that too sometimes

That's true, everyone does it, I've certainly done it.  You're doing it right now, calling us 'globers'.  Not as bad as Wise's 'angry globulust'  but still making up and using a pejorative term for us.

Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #327 on: Today at 12:14:39 PM »
So how shoud I call you? I belive Earth is round (realy, i argue for geocentrism, as i am 50-50 for geo/helio centrism)

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Geocentric Earth model and Aether
« Reply #328 on: Today at 01:53:40 PM »
So how shoud I call you? I belive Earth is round (realy, i argue for geocentrism, as i am 50-50 for geo/helio centrism)

You shouldn't call me anything really. :)

Non Flat Earther is really the best way I think.

I mean, if I say I'm not a Muslim what does that make me?  Non-Muslim.

If I say I'm not a Christian, I'm a non-Christian.

If I say I'm not a Russian citizen, that makes me a Non-Russian to them.

Being called an angry globulust or a globe-tard or a REtard is just insulting and doesn't really advance the discussion.

If name calling is going to be allowed, I got lots more than those to use in return. :)