Physics without einstein

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Zarkov, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Google search on Miller's results

    >> "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, July 1925

    >> Dayton Miller's light-beam interferometer, at 4.3 meters across, was the largest and most sensitive of this type of apparatus ever constructed, with a mirror-reflected round-trip light-beam path of 64 meters. It was used in a definitive set of ether-drift experiments on Mt. Wilson, 1925-1926. Protective insulation is removed in this photograph, and windows were present all around the shelter at the level of the interferometer light-path (see below).

    >> Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v) ..... [my addition, Fizeau verified this using moving water and a light beam]

    http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    from link provided..

    >> While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller's work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether-measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein's relativity theory.>>>


    What is it with scientists, why does "unacceptable" data cause the destruction of a researchers work and their life...

    Theory is just made up BS, its the facts, that count, the results of experiment and observation.... the theory as history has shown so many times in science is just made up and should be easily discarded... never...

    Thank you James R, for you total intolerance

    <b>Back on subject</b>...

    Note the motion of the Earth around the Sun, is not detectable on Earth, except as Miller noted there is an anistrophy between noon and dusk.... smal in value, this is due to field compression.

    On Earth one can only measure the spin due to the differential rotation of the Earth's field by the Sun's field.

    Past Earth's L1 and L2 with the Sun, one would measure the primary spin field of the Sun.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    >> 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)

    Poor bloke.... he found the spin alright.... and just got destroyed for excellent work and telling the truth
    Such is the illusion Einstein has created over the whole world...... truely amazing.

    >> There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971,

    >> "... precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometers per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to ... calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results." (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)

    One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: "In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometers per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result". This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether. >>>
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    By itself, it doesn't.

    So, I guess your Spin Gravity theory is also "just made up BS", right?

    Unfortunately, my tolerance does not extend as far as your ignorance, Zarkov.

    Search the internet again, and see if you can dig up the well-known criticisms of Miller's experiments.
     
  8. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    >> So, I guess your Spin Gravity theory is also "just made up BS", right?

    yep of course, it is my attempt to understand the electrodynamic system we are a part of.

    >> Search the internet again, and see if you can dig up the well-known criticisms of Miller's experiments.

    I will do that James R, Thanks, maybe you could provide a link to an approved site ?
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    That's certainly an interesting quote, isn't it? It doesn't sound like Einstein found Miller's data "unacceptable" at all.

    So, why were the results discounted?

    Look here:
    (http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/M_M/M_M.html )

    Because the data was unconfirmed. Interesting, but apparently an anomaly.

    You might also be interested in this:
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment)

    Note that Michelson and Morley did not want a null result on their experiment. They thought the ether was there, and were disappointed that they didn't find it. Their own data was unacceptable to their own ideas! But, like Einstein said in your quote, Experimentum summus judex.
     
  10. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Thanks for that Pete,

    From those figures in the table you supplied, it seems they are getting well into the ballpark of 7.91 km/sec, this is the only value that could be expected from such measurements taken on Earth.

    We know from experiment that electric fields affect light, so it is not unreasonable to accept the figures.

    At least it is more reasonable to accept the measured results rather than assert the speed of light is constant "in space" / vacuum drawn from an experiment that did actually produce a contrary result. Just because it was not expected, there is no reason to discount it... unbelievably poor science IMO.

    That is one of the problems with holding dogmatic theory... the theory can destroy valid data.

    In all cases, the true understanding comes long after the many "seem to fit" theories come and go, becaue the facts remain.

    This is the age of <b>theory</b> or the age of ego.......
     
  11. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Townsend Brown.... The links slowly fall into place

    The Trouton-Noble experiment
    >> Conclusions: Something caused a free-hanging charged capacitor to turn, indicating that there is some other kind of interaction going on here than is immediately visible. If the turning of the capacitor denotes the existence of Ether drift, then it appears that the Etherite scientists are vindicated. Most importantly, wires were kept distant and interference minimised to clear out erroneous results. The one thing that can be said with certainty is that the Trouton-Noble experiment can yield a positive effect when performed properly, and that it reveals a novel means of producing torque without any external torque inducing mechanism. The capacitor becomes a statorless electro-etheric motor.
    http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/EclipseLab/2k1/EG/TN.html

    The electric-magnetic ether.....
     
  12. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-spav.htm
    >> Classical electrodynamics is in a slow but continuous evolution and some of the recent advances are the results of discussions that have been going on for decades. In recent times many papers have been published on themes related to the so called "electrodynamics controversy." This is a scientific controversy between physicists in favor of the standard relativistic interpretation of classical electrodynamics and physicists that favor an approach to electrodynamics based on coordinate transformations different from the Lorentz transformations and, thus, negate the validity of special relativity.

    I was unaware that this whole subject was a hornets nest... to me it just flows logically

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Since when electric fields do affect light? Where did you read his?

    I agree with you. You can see in sciforum several people that are left 100 years back. Believing like a religion in aether. These people do not really understand the theory of relativity but they are sure that relativity is wrong, and they have "theories" without any evidence to support them (no experimental result, no mathematical model). As I said, I totally agree with you.
     
  14. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    >> Believing <b>like a religion in aether</B>.
    These people <b>do not really understand the theory of relativity</b> but they are sure that relativity is wrong,



    LOL, beautiful logic....LOL

    The impartial mind is the Buddha's middle path.. follow the data not the theory.....

    Oh that was so cute , 1100f !!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    I said I agree with you, what is so funny?
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It isn't a hornets nest. Among physicists, there is almost universal agreement that the aether does not exist and that the theory of relativity is correct.
     
  17. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    >> It isn't a hornets nest. Among physicists, there is almost universal agreement that the aether does not exist and that the theory of relativity is correct.


    Oh I am soooooooooooooooo aware of this James R. ah yes <i>no hornets nest </i> LOL

    Have you got anything to add to this discussion, or are you just raising the relativity flag to see who will salute.


    Sadly, not I... as you know.... so please put you objections in concrete
    We all would appreciate your informed input.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004
  18. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Sorry 1100f, I thought you were calling the kettle black.....
    You a relativitist or just open ?
     
  19. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    As I told you, I agree with you about people being religious with their theory. They do not accept the results of experiments. For example, the best measurement today that fit the theory is the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. This is the most accurate measurement of some physical property that fit the theoretical calculation.
    The theory that predict this is QED. QED is a relativistic theory. Without relativity, electron will not have a spin, it will not have a magnetic moment, it will not have an anomalous magnetic moment. This is a result of relativity that particle must have a mass (due to the representations of the Poincare group) and spin, and in case of particle traveling at c, they have zero mass and their spin is reduced to only two helicity components.
    Galilean relativity do not predict any of them.
    But as you said, people who believe in their theory in a religious way, will ignore all the facts that show the flaws of their theory
     
  20. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    mmmmh, I still detect the pot calling the kettle black.

    Some aspects of GR are correct, borrowed/ stolen (without acknowledgement) from many other researchers in the field.

    BUT

    QED and GR certainly do not see eye to eye.

    ESGT and QED certainly speak the same language.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Warning to potential contributors to this thread:

    Zarkov has a history on another forum of continually criticising, with no evidence at all, virtually any and every scientific theory which comes up in conversation. His particular hobby-horse, though, is theories of gravity.

    He claims that there is a theory called "Electromagnetic Spin Gravity Theory (ESGT)". He claims that this is a detailed, mathematical, theory of which he is the author.

    In the few years I have had contact with Zarkov, I have seen almost no evidence that any such well-developed theory actually exists. This "theory" is simply a cover for Zarkov to expound on any topic which takes his fancy from moment to moment.

    Basically, when Zarkov comes across an idea he likes (usually one which tries to refute relativity or Newtonian gravity), he will say, with no supporting evidence at all "This idea agrees with the ideas of ESGT." When he sees an idea he doesn't like, he will say, again with no supporting evidence at all, "That idea is wrong, but ESGT offers a better, correct explanation."

    You will hear lots of things from Zarkov about the wonders of ESGT, but you will never see any set of basic principles or mathematics behind his so-called theory. ESGT is no more than a label for anything and everything Zarkovian.

    I would advise the moderator of this forum to move Zarkov's threads to "Pseudoscience" where they belong. You will notice that, although ostensibly his ideas would seem more suited to the Physics forum than to the Astronomy forum, he has chosen to post them here, for the sole reason that he knows I will not tolerate his rubbish in the Physics forum.
     
  22. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Thank you once again James R for you comprehensive addition to this discussion.

    If any reader would like to see ESGT laid out, then it is prepared for viewing. However the document is close on 60 A4 pages at present,,,

    but I am only too pleased to post relevant sections on request.

    Here is a Mathematical Summary

    When the radius of orbit of a body is equal to the radius of application

    v^2 = Gcentral spin / r = Field Potential

    v^2 / r = Gcentral spin / r^2 = Gravity

    v^2 / r^2 = Gcentral spin / r^3 = Field Density

    The spin resonant inertial secondary B-E field induced by the orbit of an inertial geomagnetic mass immersed in a primary circulating B-E field, causes a reactive force towards an inertia state when a non-inertial acceleration is applied to any mass-charge in that secondary field. The inertial state is a minimum potential state, which is realised when a mass is supported or when a mass is in resonant motion with a field.

    BxEcross field vector = Magnetic Field Density X Electric Field Potential ...... (57)

    = Gcentral spin / r^3 X Gcentral spin / r ........(58)

    = Gcentral spin^2 / r^4 .........(59)

    In accordance with Newton's First Law equating action and reaction, the reacting force is equivalent to the latent potential energy held in the B-E field. The reaction caused by non resonant motion is directed towards the centre of the field spin according to the right hand rule in electrodynamics.

    The reacting orthogonal resultant vector = ( BxEcross field vector )^1/2 ........(60)

    = ( Gcentral spin^2 / r^4 )^1/2 .........(61)

    = Gcentral spin / r^2 .........(63)

    = Gravity
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004
  23. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    >> Babcock's solar dynamo model links the Sun's varying activity to its differential rotation on its axis. It takes into account the Sun's spin momentum, but not its orbital angular momentum related to its irregular oscillation about the centre of mass of the solar system, first described by Newton. This orbital momentum can reach 25% of the spin momentum and varies forty-fold within a few years (Landscheidt, 1999). If there were transfer of angular momentum from the Sun's orbit to the spin on its axis, this would make a difference of up to 7% in its equatorial rotational velocity (Blizard, 1982). Such acceleration or deceleration has actually been observed.

    This seems to be indicative of a case of spin-orbit coupling of the spinning Sun and the Sun revolving about the centre of mass involving transfer of angular momentum. Coupling could result from the Sun's motion through its own ejected plasma (Landscheidt, 1999). The low corona can act as a brake on the Sun's surface (Dicke, 1964).
    http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/NinoLand.html

    Interesting observations indeed. What happens of Earth is caused in the main by the Sun's behaviour.

    The whole new area of plasma astrophysics is changing the cosmology of the Universe
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004

Share This Page