Vodka! the return of the Aether (some help perhaps for YECs)

_{Salvador Cordova

August 16, 2013

Astronomy, News, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There is some benefit to ID if even parts of the YEC hypothesis are confirmed, the most notable example right now is Sanford and Cos work which was presented at the Cornell Conference. In a previous thread, I discussed the distant starlight problem is a thorn in the side of YEC.

[the Vodka designation means the following material likely has errors but has data that are worth considering]

vodka

There are some experiments that have indirect bearing on the question YEC. Any experiment that may enable us to augment existing physics, particularly Einstein’s relativity and Maxwell’s equations is good for YEC, and thus possibly good for ID. But Einstein’s relativity and Maxwell’s equations have numerous experimental proofs ( unlike Darwinism). Much of the high tech world works because of Maxwell’s equations, and Einstein’s special relativity is consequence of Maxwell’s equations.

When we are in a moving car and put our hand out of the window, we can feel the air pushing on our hand and thus get a sense of our motion relative to the air. Airplanes use pitot tubes to sense an airplane’s motion relative to the air. A pitot tube protrudes from the nose of this fighter plane below:

pitot

But does space contain a substance (the Aether wind) that can be sensed as we move through it (like we can sense the air)? A famous experiment over 120 years ago suggested the answer is “no”, but a recent experiment suggests the answer is “yes” and this may force a change in our understanding of Einstein’s relativity and Maxwell’s equations.

The experiment 120 years ago is called the Michelson-Morley experiment. It attempted to sense the Earth’s velocity by sensing our movement through the Aether. The experiment was supposed to detect our movement through space around the sun at a speed of around 29.7 km/s, it did not, Michelson-Morley’s speedometer read zero! Thus Michelson did not find the Aether he earnestly sought, and with a broken heart, he accepted the Nobel prize in recognition for his failure to find the Aether. Ah, the irony!

Michelson’s experiment and others like it were used to support Einstein’s theory of relativity. There has been little reason to redo such experiments because Einstein’s theories (unlike Darwin’s) work so well. But that does not necessarily mean Einstein’s theories can’t be tweaked. 😈

Michelson-Morley 120 years ago and similar experiments thereafter may have left out one consideration, the effect of Earth’s gravity on the Aether! E.I. Shtyrkov of the Kazan Phys Technical Institute in Kazan, Russia carried out a modified Michelson-Morley experiment that took gravity into account. Shtyrkov claims he found the Aether that Michelson searched for. [I’ll let the reader decide the truthfulness of the claim over a glass of vodka…]

Shtyrkov’s experiment used geosynchronous satellites. And lo and behold, not only did it report a value close to the average velocity of the Earth moving around the sun at 29.4 km/s, it could even sense seasonal changes in the speed of the Earth as depicted in this graph. The X-axis gives the velocities over the hundreds of days the experiment was run, and the Y-axis is the velocity detected:

His paper is a tough read partly because it was translated into English from Russian and partly because of the technical nature of the work.

Measuring Parameters of the Earth Sun System

Here is Shtyrkov’s profile: E. I. Shtyrkov

Technical criticisms are welcome, but please be polite since I warned y’all that this could be in error. Thanks.

NOTES:

1. Here is a 3 minute video that explains the Michelson-Morley experiment (watch in full screen mode to see the details):

Michelson Morley video

2. other essays on the topic:
Dissident view of Relativity by William Cantrell. An exceprt:

Silvertooth measured the standing waves formed by light beamed in opposite directions using two lasers. One of the lasers was phase modulated with respect to the other, creating certain phase effects that could be measured with a special photomultiplier tube. Silvertooth found a consistently privileged direction pointing to the constellation Leo, traveling at a velocity of 378 km/sec regardless of the time of day or year
…
It should be noted that Silvertooth published his results prior to the launch of NASA’s COBE satellite, whose purpose was to accurately measure the cosmic microwave background. Due to the motion of our solar system, a Doppler shift was discovered which imparts a slight anisotropy to the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. Precise measurement of this anisotropy indicates that the heliocentric (Sun centered) frame moves toward the constellation Leo with a velocity of 390 km/sec, in excellent agreement with Silvertooth’s findings.
…
In 1991 another experiment appeared to confirm a galactic velocity component of the aether. Roland DeWitte carried out an experiment in Belgium involving two cesium clocks separated by 1.5 kilometers along a common meridian. A 5 MHz RF signal was generated from each cesium time-base. This produced two independent, but identical signals to within the limits of cesium clock drift. A long length of buried coaxial cable was used to send one of the RF signals down to the other end for comparison using a phase detector. DeWitte ran the experiment over a considerable time span of 178 days.

The results indicated that an anomalous phase shift was present in the data, correlated to sidereal, not civil, time. With a period of 23 hours 56 minutes ± 25seconds (one sidereal day), this proved that the effect responsible for the phase shift was of galactic, not man-made, origin. It would be very interesting to repeat this experiment and also include a round-trip measurement to see if a null-result would be obtained due to round-trip averaging.

Less precise measurements were made using a 500 meter cable and rubidium clocks by Torr and Kolen at NIST.24 They observed an unexplained one-way phase shift which disappeared from the complete round-trip measurement. These one-way results are not predicted by Einstein’s theory, and it is hard to think of another mechanism or artifact correlated to sidereal time that would cause the results seen by DeWitte—certainly not thermal heating or human activity, which would be correlated to a mean solar day (24 hours).

Other experiments carried out:

Kinematic Waves Viscosity in Optical Wave Band by Yu Galaev (scroll to page 17 of 52).

2. Shtyrkov also suggested the speed of light was faster in the past:
The Evolved Vacuum of Redshifts

3. photo credits
http://globalbeauties.com/universe/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/russianstandard.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2681/4171245655_35f6d4cccc_o.jpg
http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/img/bradl357.gif

Comments

lifespy, I appreciate that you are bold in arguing your case. I respect you feel that way, and I don't intend that my disagreement is meant to disrespect something you hold dear. I may post further on the topic of heliocentricsm vs geocentricism at UD because it can be a way to describe how the laws of physics are understood and developed. regards, Salscordova_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

We also use heliocentric for the solar system, and when modeling orbits of satellites around a planet, like mars, it would be planet centric. Hence geocentrcity is a matter of convenience, but it does not accord with the normal experience of how we view the notion of motion.
Yes, the geocentric model is convenient and works. But I was responding to your implication that the space program would not work at all if the Earth was stationary. Many people seem to have this misconception that rockets would drop out of the sky if Heliocentrism was false.
When you are driving a car, you could use a car-centric model where the world moves, but your car is stationary. How do you know that your car is moving or that your car is stationary and the rest of the world not moving?
Well, this analogy posits that the universe starts, stops, and changes direction arbitrarily based on an individual driver. Though you could argue the relativistic possibility, it doesn't really make any sense... unless maybe the driver was God. On the other hand, Geocentrism posits an absolute property of the universe ordered at Creation.
With respect to the sun, the Earth is experiencing acceleration (toward the sun), so the Earth is moving, where “moving” is defined in the common sense notion of how we define moving in terms of the object experiencing acceleration (such as passengers in a car).
Though Earth is supposed to be spinning 1,000 MPH and hurdling around the Sun at 67,000 MPH, we don't experience any such motion. Observed phenomena such as the Coriolis Effect, that are offered as 'proofs' for Earth's movement, can be equally explained by the mass of the universe rotating around a stationary Earth: Mach's Principle.
If the Earth is the center of the universe about which everything revolves, it means the stars are orbiting the Earth which means they are accelerating toward the Earth. What provides the force to create this sort of accelation? Nothing, because the universe does not revolve around the Earth.
What force generated the Universe? We can still empirically observe that Rotation is an apparent property of the universe, whether or not we can explain the force.
If one wants to be a geocentrist, it’s like trying to do physics with car centric models. It can be made in principle to work mathematically, but it really violates the spirit of what it means to be stationary, particularly the notion of acceleration, which we can actually feel.
I don't know what you're experiencing, but for me, a calm day on the solid surface of the Earth is one of the most stable, motionless sensations I can imagine.
Perhaps its not the Bible that’s wrong but the geocentric interpretation of the Bible.
I know I won't be winning any popularity contests, but I feel justified in interpreting Geocentrism from Genesis. I don't see how a heliocentric model can be salvaged from a plain reading of the creation of the heavens and the Earth. This is additionally supported by sixty or so Biblical verses that say the Sun is in motion, or that the Earth is does not move. You can argue that these are written from the perspective of someone on Earth, but they still support the clear geocentric implications found in Genesis. And in the Bible, there is not a single mention of any kind of motion or 'procession' or 'course' of the Earth. We are told the Earth "hangs on nothing" (Job 26:7), so God is in fact giving us scientific facts about the Earth's relationship to the cosmos.lifepsy_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Space programs regularly use geocentric frames of reference.
We also use heliocentric for the solar system, and when modeling orbits of satellites around a planet, like mars, it would be planet centric. Hence geocentrcity is a matter of convenience, but it does not accord with the normal experience of how we view the notion of motion. When you are driving a car, you could use a car-centric model where the world moves, but your car is stationary. How do you know that your car is moving or that your car is stationary and the rest of the world not moving? Human experience says if you are experiencing acceleration, you're the one moving! At least "moving" in the sense of normal usage of the word "moving". With respect to the sun, the Earth is experiencing acceleration (toward the sun), so the Earth is moving, where "moving" is defined in the common sense notion of how we define moving in terms of the object experiencing acceleration (such as passengers in a car). One could of course concoct any sort of coordinate system to make themselves the center of the universe, but it would not conform to ordinary notions of what it means to be stationary. If the Earth is the center of the universe about which everything revolves, it means the stars are orbiting the Earth which means they are accelerating toward the Earth. What provides the force to create this sort of accelation? Nothing, because the universe does not revolve around the Earth. If one wants to be a geocentrist, it's like trying to do physics with car centric models. It can be made in principle to work mathematically, but it really violates the spirit of what it means to be stationary, particularly the notion of acceleration, which we can actually feel. Perhaps its not the Bible that's wrong but the geocentric interpretation of the Bible.scordova_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Is the glass of Vodka half full or half empty? And who drank the other half because I doubt it was anybody YEC... click "Like" on #15.Breckmin_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Scordova,
First off, creationists have been sent to the moon (Irwin and Duke), they relied on the celestial mechanics that says the Earth orbits the sun
Space programs regularly use geocentric frames of reference. As far as I can tell, the claim that these operations would fail in a geocentric universe is unsubstantiated. In both helio and geo models, the moon is going to be at X location at X time, relative to a fixed position on Earth.
The proof of the Earth orbiting the sun because of gravity is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_equation
That is not any kind of proof for a moving Earth. Just because we observe other celestial bodies behaving in a predictable way, does not mean Earth is behaving the same way. What I see in comments like these is a philosophical assumption that the Earth *must* be just like every other wandering rock we see in space, in terms of occupying no preferential location in supposedly Copernican space.
It does not mean the Bible is wrong, but maybe Geocentrists aren’t understanding what God is trying to tell them.
A plain reading of Genesis tells us that the Earth is special in a physical sense.. The firmament (heavens) was created around it, the Sun, Moon, Stars(planets) were created for it. Earth was created before the Sun, no hint of ever being 'set in motion'. I think part of understanding God's Word is reading it the way it is written.lifepsy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

I posted on the math related to information theory and probability several places at UD. They were written like tutorials, but you refused to accepted what I said: https://uncommondescent.com/computer-science/a-designed-objects-entropy-must-increase-for-its-design-complexity-to-increase-part-1/ and if you go to the comment section, you'll see worked out examples: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/siding-with-mathgrrl-on-a-point-and-offering-an-alternative-to-csi-v2-0/#comment-455074 I posted on some of population genetics here (scroll to the bottom): https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/darwins-delusion-vs-death-of-the-fittest/ and probability https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/ssdd-a-22-sigma-event-is-consistent-with-the-physics-of-fair-coins/ As far as tutorials, there are the equivalent of basic algebra and discrete math and calculus books on the net. The stuff is drudgery....
Hi Sal, is it true that you are good at math?
Good enough to get kicked out of a casino for my math skills :-) https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/holy-rollers-pascals-wager-if-id-is-wrong-it-was-an-honest-mistake/scordova_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Hi Sal, is it true that you are good at math? Maybe you could post some tutorials on the mathematics required to understand information theory and population genetics. What do you think?Mung_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Sal, you’re good at math, answer me this: How much gravity is required to move something if God doesn’t want it to move?
No amount will, but remember God created gravity, it's not like it opposes Him, the Bible teach he sustains gravity since He sustains all things.
And here’s another physics question: If the sun’s gravity went to move the Earth, and the latter didn’t move, what would happen?
That would imply something is stopping the Earth from moving! The Earth can't just stop without a force equal and opposite to the sun's gravity AND something stopping it from orbiting. The only way this can happen is if the Earth were to act like a giant rocketship... If you are sitting down, gravity is acting on you, and you aren't moving because the ground under you prevents you from falling toward the center of the Earth. When this condition occurs you are aware of your weight and you feel the compression of that weight on your members, whereas when gravity is allowed to move you (like when you jump out of an airplane) you feel weightless because you are accelerating toward the center of the Earth, parallel to the gravitational field. When flying, I once put my airplane into a dive, and was able to get stuff (like pens) to float briefly in the cockpit. See this video where a couple pilot did this to a dog:
Sal, you’re good at math, answer me this: How much gravity is required to move something if God doesn’t want it to move?
No amount will, but remember God created gravity, it's not like it opposes Him, the Bible teach he sustains gravity since He sustains all things.
And here’s another physics question: If the sun’s gravity went to move the Earth, and the latter didn’t move, what would happen?
That would imply something is stopping the Earth from moving! The Earth can't just stop without a force equal and opposite to the sun's gravity AND something stopping it from orbiting. The only way this can happen is if the Earth were to act like a giant rocketship... If you are sitting down, gravity is acting on you, and you aren't moving because the ground under you prevents you from falling toward the center of the Earth. When this condition occurs you are aware of your weight and you feel the compression of that weight on your members, whereas when gravity is allowed to move you (like when you jump out of an airplane) you feel weightless because you are accelerating toward the center of the Earth, parallel to the gravitational field. When flying, I once put my airplane into a dive, and was able to get stuff (like pens) to float briefly in the cockpit. See this video where a couple pilot did this to a dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvBGb5lf78 Bottom line, certain basics of physics can't dismissed, otherwise we wouldn't be able to put up those GPS satellites that help us drive our cars. This is real science, not theology or some anti-Bible campaign. NOTES: When astronauts are in orbit, they feel weightless because they are accelerating toward the center of the Earth without actually moving closer to the center. How this can be can't be appreciated unless one has a little vector calculus. The radial velocity (velocity toward the center) is zero, but the radial acceleration (acceleration toward the center) is non-zero on the order of 9.53 m/s^2 for a low Earth orbit of 100 km above the surface. See: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4c.cfm The gravitational acceleration of the Earth toward the sun is: .0058 m/s^2 which is 1700 time smaller than the acceleration we experience in the Earth's gravitational field on the surface at 9.81 m/s^2. Sorry for the terse response, but physics isn't exactly easy... Bottom line, certain basics of physics can't dismissed, otherwise we wouldn't be able to put up those GPS satellites that help us drive our cars. This is real science, not theology or some anti-Bible campaign. NOTES: When astronauts are in orbit, they feel weightless because they are accelerating toward the center of the Earth without actually moving closer to the center. How this can be can't be appreciated unless one has a little vector calculus. The radial velocity (velocity toward the center) is zero, but the radial acceleration (acceleration toward the center) is non-zero on the order of 9.53 m/s^2 for a low Earth orbit of 100 km above the surface. See: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4c.cfm The gravitational acceleration of the Earth toward the sun is: .0058 m/s^2 which is 1700 time smaller than the acceleration we experience in the Earth's gravitational field on the surface at 9.81 m/s^2. Sorry for the terse response, but physics isn't exactly easy...scordova_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Sal, you're good at math, answer me this: How much gravity is required to move something if God doesn't want it to move? And here's another physics question: If the sun's gravity went to move the Earth, and the latter didn't move, what would happen?George E._{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

lifepsy, First off, creationists have been sent to the moon (Irwin and Duke), they relied on the celestial mechanics that says the Earth orbits the sun because of the Sun's gravity, and the moon "orbits" the Earth because of the Earth's gravity. And it was Christians who contributed to the discipline of celestial mechanics that enable us to build space probes. And it was a creationists (von Braun) who helped build the spaceships that sent man to the moon. From our perspective, things do look like they revolve around us, but the notion of an object orbiting because of gravity requires one object be modeled as stationary and the other moving such as the Earth orbiting the Sun because of the Suns substantially stronger gravitational field. That said, in common language we still say "the sun rises". The proof of the Earth orbiting the sun because of gravity is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_equation It does not mean the Bible is wrong, but maybe Geocentrists aren't understanding what God is trying to tell them. I'm of the opinion studying nature helps us interpret the Bible because God made nature to testify of him. If it turns out that nature tells us the Earth revolves around the sun, then maybe that should enlighten us how to understand God's word. Making the Earth the center of the universe also has bad theological connotations. We're special in the universe by God's grace, but we're not the center of reality by nature. Salscordova_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

This subject and research is very related to Geocentrism. I believe the Earth is stationary, because I think the Bible is pretty clear about it (most notably in Genesis). The surprising thing is that once you go looking for proof that the Earth is in motion, you come up empty handed. Copernicanism has always been rooted in a great deal of philosophy, and Heliocentrism, though perhaps an elegant theory, is not the irrefutable fact that it is made out to be. This is a good overview of the geocentrism issue by Rick DeLano http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49_IzLeEo4lifepsy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

The real problem with the theory, Sal, is that it has one clock moving both faster and slower than the other clock, depending on what part of the light you consider. If you look at a given light insofar as it's moving in the direction of the moving clock, then the moving clock will run slower than the non-moving clock, according to the theory. However, if you look at the very same light insofar as it's moving away from the moving clock and toward or past the non-moving clock, then the moving clock will be running faster than the non-moving clock. There’s a logical contradiction here. Think about it.George E._{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Hey Guys, <a href="http://www.example.com">For Example</a> Produces For ExampleChance Ratcliff_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Sal, At bottom relativity is just as absurd as Darwinism. For at the heart of the Special Theory is the so-called “twins paradox,” which is a logical absurdity and a metaphysical impossibility — and there can never be any evidence for that which is metaphysically impossible.
To be fair we do see clocks slow down when they reach high speed, confirming the twin paradox, sort of. Slowing of clocks doesn't necessarily mean time slows down, but it makes for nice headlines. This observation helped seal Einstein's fame even though it was Lorentz who discovered it. Curiously, Special relativity is described by the Lorentz transformation, not the Einstein transformation.scordova_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Sal, At bottom relativity is just as absurd as Darwinism. For at the heart of the Special Theory is the so-called "twins paradox," which is a logical absurdity and a metaphysical impossibility -- and there can never be any evidence for that which is metaphysically impossible. As for the ether, everybody already knows it exists. If it did not, the propagation of light, electromagnetism, the phenomena of quantum mechanics, the atomic structure, stellar aberration, and yes, even Einstein's General Theory would all be unintelligible. Einstein himself admitted that GTR required an ether. The really story is this: Relativity was not invented to explain why the ether could not be detected, but rather to explain why the motion of the Earth could not be detected. Those who have eyes to see, let them see.George E._{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Strange, it didn't work right. Maybe I made a typo?? Anyway, you can always just go to http://www.tinyurl.com and make your link shorter and post in the comments :PJGuy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

It didn't work. I think you have to type out the entire URL. Apparently, the comment was made as if google.com was a webpage associated with this comment page. Example (let’s see if it works): (type the less than symbol here)a href=”http://www.google.com”(greater than symbol here)some text(less than symbol here)/a(greater than symbol here). some text Maybe that works better.JGuy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

tjguy I think you just need to use the HTML anchor tag. It's the one with the less than symbol, the letter "a", then the greater than symbol. I either forgot how or can't type the less than and greater than symbol in the comments. I'll try to explain. Example (let's see if it works): (type the less than symbol here)a href="google.com"(greater than symbol here)some text(less than symbol here)/a(greater than symbol here). some text If it worked, you can click the text and it will go to google.JGuy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

Sal: "Punctuated equilibrium for galaxies…" LOL!JGuy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

OT: Can someone please explain to me how to post a web address here in a shortened form like this?
http://www.conspiracyoflight.c.....rtooth.pdf
Thanks.tjguy_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

The Silvertooth experiment was falsified. Turns out it was changes in the temperature that affected the lasers! http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Silvertooth/Silvertooth.pdf :sad: The other experiments however still look promising. :-)scordova_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Speaking of the distant galaxy paradox where it looks like theories of galactic evolution have failed, we got more confirmation of this paradox recently! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130815083953.htm
Aug. 15, 2013 — Studying the evolution and anatomy of galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope, an international team of astronomers led by doctoral candidate BoMee Lee and her advisor Mauro Giavalisco at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have established that mature-looking galaxies existed much earlier than previously known, when the universe was only about 2.5 billion years old, or 11.5 billion years ago. "Finding them this far back in time is a significant discovery," says lead author Lee. ... "Clearly, the Hubble Sequence formed very quickly in the history of the cosmos, it was not a slow process," adds Giavalisco. "Now we have to go back to theory and try to figure out how and why."
Dang right Galaxy formation wasn't a slow process. Maybe it happened quickly because.... :-) Punctuated equilibrium for galaxies...scordova_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

If the Aether changes over time (dare I say evolves) and in space, then it could conceivably change the velocity of light. Demjanov speculates that photons are actually quasi-particles in a medium (Nobel Prize winner Laughlin may be sympathetic to that idea, you know, the guy who helped promote the non-existence of black holes). If the medium changes way out there in space, well...wow, light can travel very fast indeed and the paradox of the distant galaxies is resolved.scordova_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Michelson-Morley 120 years ago and similar experiments thereafter may have left out one consideration, the effect of Earth’s gravity on the Aether! E.I. Shtyrkov of the Kazan Phys Technical Institute in Kazan, Russia carried out a modified Michelson-Morley experiment that took gravity into account
Actually Shtyrkov didn't take gravity into account, Demjanov says Shtyrkov got lucky! http://vixra.org/pdf/1307.0049v1.pdfscordova_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

I'll retract my comment that it could explain c decay (if cdk was real). I made some error in the reasoning. Aether, as I speculated some properties, would actually slow it down during the course of flight from the past when a specific transmission originated. Not the speed of new transmission of light today.JGuy_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Seems to me that space itself is a good candidate for the aether. All we'd have to do is imagine that space doesn't have infinite permeability (i.e. has some extremely slight resistance to motion). Aferall, it interacts with matter and light... of course, this seems it would mean all motion would be slowing down. But if you have practically infinite permeability, then you can have a well greased universe...but perhaps still something to detect. This could even explain c decay :P If you have a speeding boat in the water, and cut power, it decelerates a lot fast in the first moments before deceleration (i.e. rate of deceleration is accelerating). Just brainstorming.JGuy_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Whats wrong with YEC??? Where is our errors??? Our ideas are based on the bible being the word of the creator! How could he be wrong??? Anyways believers created modern science, by increasing the modern intelligence level, and most unlikely we are wrong. However as I say to evolutionists show the evidence behind ones assertions. They can't do it! ID froiends turn at the bat.Robert Byers_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Thank you butifnot and jGuy for the comments. I don't think neutrinos can be the substance of the Aether, they are separate. The Sagnac effect is not a proper refutation of special relativity since it involves accelerating frames of reference. Special Relativity (SR) involves only non-accelerating frames of reference. The Sagnac affect takes place in rotating (accelerating) frames of reference. You have to use general relativity (GR) to properly analyze accelerating (rotating) reference frames not special relativity (SR). I believe the correct general relativity metric tensor can be formed from this formula from the wiki page on Sagnac: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/1/7/a17f3c63d19a1a01818b99293d4989eb.png from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect Salscordova_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Ok, Here is another paper by V V Demjanov. He re-did the Michelson-Morley experiment, but instead of having the light bounce through a vacuum, he used various optical media including: 1. air 2. water 3. glass 4. flint glass The normal Michelson-Morley effect was realized with vacuum but once he started using other media, he was able to detect the Aether! The speed of the his experimental device through space even changed depending on the time of day, which is a tad mysterious. Take it with a grain of salt and a glass of Vodka, but this experiment is worth trying to duplicate. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.5658v4.pdf Further, a well known formula, the Sellmeier-Maxwell equation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellmeier_equation Was adjusted to include relativistic effect :shock: and voila, it agreed with Demjanov's results: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.2035v7.pdfscordova_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

A chaser for your vodka: http://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY Sagnac effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect ... a second shot of vodka on the house: http://youtu.be/87M2i61N1cU Disclaimer: I do not hold to geocentricism. Just sharing some claimed experimental observations related to the aether.JGuy_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply