What Really is Aberration?

[Dunash]

There are no fewer than four explanations for aberration, each based on
experiment.Of the four, two coexist, namely
Fresnell drag and relativity. A third, vector addition, is superseded by
relativity, but it is by no means disproven. The fourth is having the light
bearing medium, (a universal ether or possibly the gravitational or
electro-magnetic field of the sun or earth) dragging the light past the
earth.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-08-05 05:49 ]</font>

[Prince]

The main difference in the geocentric view is that the light-bearing medium
flows past the earth rather than the earth
flowing through it. Both Fitzgerald contraction and Fresnell drag could
apply in the geocentric explanation, too. In one respect the geocentric view is more
realistic than the heliocentric view because the geocentric model assumes
the presence of the light-bearing medium whereas the relativistic
heliocentric model does not. This leads to a paradoxical situation in
relativity, for according to relativity, the speed of light is a scalar. The
word "scalar" is a technical term meaning that light travels at some speed
(that is, it has a "magnitude"), but it has no sense of direction (that is, the
speed of light is the same everywhere, regardless of the direction of
travel). But for the speed of light velocity triangles to add together, it has to be a vector, not a scalar. In that sense, the geocentric explanation is better.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2002-08-05 17:07 ]</font>

[jumbo]

Speed is always a scalar, velocity is a vector both in newtonian physics and relativistic physics

[traztx]

On 2002-08-05 17:03, Prince wrote:
In one respect the geocentric view is more
realistic than the heliocentric view because the geocentric model assumes
the presence of the light-bearing medium whereas the relativistic
heliocentric model does not.

How can it be more realistic if such a medium doesn't exist in reality?
--Tommy

[David Hall]

I thought the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there is no "flow" of ether that can be detected. At least, geocentrists tend to dismiss it by saying that the ether clumps up or clings to objects.

[Rift]

The Amazing Ether, it clumps, it clings, it slices, it dices, it makes julian fries. It makes geocentrism possible. For only 9.99 you too can be the center of the universe.

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-05 17:03, Prince wrote:
In one respect the geocentric view is more
realistic than the heliocentric view because the geocentric model assumes
the presence of the light-bearing medium whereas the relativistic
heliocentric model does not.

How is this more realistic? If light, as is well understood, is made up of photons travelling at 'c', it's actually less realistic to assume a medium, because the presence of a medium would mean the light has to be affected by it in some way, slowing it down or changing it's properties. You would have to complicate things by creating a mechanism for how light would travel through it, and give good reasons why it's not otherwise detectable on it's own.

It's much more simple and realistic in my mind to think that the natural state is pure vacuum with light particles/waves travelling unimpeded by any substance (save for course corrections by the gravity of clumps of matter here and there).

[Dunash]

Reluctance to allow observations greater weight than theoretical considerations is not the only problem. Another is unwillingness to acknowledge mistakes and inconsistencies. Physics continues to deny the existence of the ether in order to maintain the Copemican system in the face
of Kennedy and Thorndyke. Yet it is forced to admit that free space is, as K. W. Ford expressed it, a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields and short-lived, virtual pairs of particles that form
and annihilate. It is generally agreed that key vacuum properties include intrinsic energy, permittivity, permeability, and intrinsic impedance, properties associated with the ether of Maxwell's and Lorentz's theories.

It seems that its existence is denied in chosen circumstances simply by
repudiating its former name. Not surprisingly, many physicists realise
that something, somewhere, is not as it should be. W. R. Corliss noted:

"As the structure of the Cosmos and the subatomic world become more and more foreign to everyday experience, we have to ask whether such bizarre constructions may not be the consequence of incorrect physical theories, such as Relativity, the Big Bang
and so on."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-08-06 06:03 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-08-06 06:05 ]</font>

[Jim]

It seems that its existence is denied in chosen circumstances simply by repudiating its former name.

Yet, you seem to be trying to "prove" its existence by changing its former definition.

Physics continues to deny the existence of the ether ... Yet it is forced to admit that free space is ... a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields and short-lived, virtual pairs of particles that form and annihilate. It is generally agreed that key vacuum properties include intrinsic energy, permittivity, permeability, and intrinsic impedance, properties associated with the ether of Maxwell's and Lorentz's theories.

These are two, different ethers. I mentioned to you in another thread:

The "classic" ether is a luminiferous, quasi-rigid substance that explains the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is presumed to be of minuscule density and viscosity, allowing us to imagine that it is somehow dragged around the earth in such a way that earthbound experimenters are always moving at the same speed as it is. Other measurements, however, contradict the presumption of ether. Just as wind refracts atmospheric sound waves, ether should cause a measurable refraction of starlight, but this is not observed.

Einstein explained the results of the M-M experiments based on a mathematical fact which gave a transformed wave equation independent of velocity and of any ether in the "classic" sense.

Later, he proposed a “new ether” which was not the same ether whose existence he had disproved.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.

The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

<a name="20020806.4:44"> page 20020806.4:44 aka O hi 0
On 2002-08-06 05:57, David Hall wrote: To: :45 PS

On 2002-08-05 17:03, Prince wrote:

? So where are the [INLINE] .gif's .jpg's
on this Question.. so i can Reply with a Quote
remove the IRC garble .. and download the
anamation 4Myself.. naturally?
I now return the debait to the small letters

[Prince]

Could aberration be due solely to the air? Not likely, but it could originate at the edge of the earth's gravitational field. More likely, the Fresnell drag of the gravitational or electro-magnetic field of the sun and the earth could account for the aberration just as well. Experiments such
at Sagnac's and the Michelson Gale experiment indicate the presence of
an aether by demonstrating that there is a relative rotation of earth and
ether (although experiments cannot tell if the earth rotates inside the
ether or if the ether rotates around the earth). Has the Sagnac experiment been done to sufficient accuracy to show if the rotational period of the ether is a solar day (24 hours) or a sidereal (stellar) day of 23hours 56 minutes? If the former then it is more likely that aberration is
due to the earth's fields whereas if the latter then the universe's field is
more likely.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2002-08-06 10:33 ]</font>

[Silas]

On 2002-08-06 06:02, Dunash wrote:. . . Yet it is forced to admit that free space is, as K. W. Ford expressed it, a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields and short-lived, virtual pairs of particles that form and annihilate. . . .

This has been observed: Hawking radiation doesn't only appear near black holes, but also near large atomic nuclei.

This isn't something we're "forced to admit," but, instead, something we've observed. You have a very contentious view of science, but this only stems from the fact that you are trying to put forward a contentious view of the universe. If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't be trying to argue it like a lawyer.

Silas

[Wiley]

On 2002-08-06 10:32, Prince wrote:
Experiments such
at Sagnac's and the Michelson Gale experiment indicate the presence of
an aether by demonstrating that there is a relative rotation of earth and
ether (although experiments cannot tell if the earth rotates inside the
ether or if the ether rotates around the earth).

This is really good stuff. It's the isotropic nature of the speed of light and the validity of the Lorentz's transformations between intertial frames that predict the Sagnac effect. My humble suggestion: don't use an effect predicted by special relativity when trying to disprove special relativity.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-08-06 12:44 ]</font>

[Kaptain K]

...at the edge of the earth's gravitational field.

Reality check

A gravitational field has no "edge".

[Prince]

Even Einstein seems to have been somewhat muddled by the confusion of ideas. He believed that length contraction and asymmetrical aging were implicit in his version of the theory. As Mendel Sachs and others have pointed out, if Einstein's version is tenable at all, then it requires them to be only apparerent effects. Lorentz's version, however, requires them to be real. To add to to this confusion the mathematician Minkowsky discovered
an ingenious transformation under which the equation c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=1
was invariant. He used this transformation to invent a "world," as he called it, in which space and time were inextricably mixed and essentially interchangeable. Einstein borrowed Minkowsky's mathematics to generate a completely new theory which he called "The General Theory of Relativity."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2002-08-06 14:44 ]</font>

[Gsquare]

On 2002-08-05 05:48, Dunash wrote:
There are no fewer than four explanations for aberration, each based on
experiment.Of the four, two coexist, namely
Fresnell drag and relativity. A third, vector addition, is superseded by
relativity, but it is by no means disproven. The fourth is having the light
bearing medium, (a universal ether or possibly the gravitational or
electro-magnetic field of the sun or earth) dragging the light past the
earth.

-By Prince. "The main difference in the geocentric view is that the light-bearing medium
flows past the earth rather than the earth
flowing through it. Both Fitzgerald contraction and Fresnell drag could
apply in the geocentric explanation, too. In one respect the geocentric view is more
realistic than the heliocentric view because the geocentric model assumes
the presence of the light-bearing medium whereas the relativistic
heliocentric model does not"....[/quote]

Thanks for the post, Dunash; excellent topic.
Prince - Apparently here, I hope you and Dunash are referring to geo-centrism with respect to the ether only and NOT w.r.t. orbital motions, which is a distinctly different matter altogether.

It ought to be obvious that the former can account for the null M & M Exp. result (i.e., earth dragging the ether) whereas the latter is observationally defunct. A distinction ought to be made OR are you implying otherwise?

G^2



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-08-06 17:57 ]</font>

[Wiley]

There's about 10% truth and 90% fiction in the previous post:

On 2002-08-06 14:43, Prince wrote:
Even Einstein seems to have been somewhat muddled by the confusion of ideas.

This is just false.

He believed that length contraction and asymmetrical aging were implicit in his version of the theory.

These are not implicit, they are explicit results of SR. There is only one implicit assumption in SR, which is that space is flat.

As Mendel Sachs and others have pointed out, if Einstein's version is tenable at all, then it requires them to be only apparerent effects.

Nope, these effects are real.

Lorentz's version, however, requires them to be real.

In Lorentz's theory these effects are real, this is true. In Lorentz's theory length contraction is dynamical in origin where in SR length contraction is kinematic in origin.

To add to to this confusion the mathematician Minkowsky discovered
an ingenious transformation under which the equation c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=1
was invariant.

Minkowski did develop this transformation, however it did not add to the confusion. Minkowski by using tensors developed the geometric interpretation of SR. There is no physical difference between Einstein's original SR and Minkowski's formal mathematical interpretation.

He used this transformation to invent a "world," as he called it, in which space and time were inextricably mixed and essentially interchangeable.

This is true, but also true in Einstein's original development of SR.

Einstein borrowed Minkowsky's mathematics to generate a completely new theory which he called "The General Theory of Relativity."

At best this sentence is poorly worded. A more accurate sentence is "Einstein used Minkowski's geometrical interpretation of SR as a starting point to extend SR to incorporate acceleration and gravity; the extended theory is called the "General Theory of Relativity."

[Dunash]

If we take the strict relativistic view of the geocentric explanation, we run into a problem. Instead of the aberration angle increasing as the speed of the star past the earth increases, what we see instead appears as a rotation of the star. A similar analysis has been done for the non-relativistic case, and it is not that difficult to see. The light ray which hits the earth will still appear to come straight from the star. Does this cause a severe problem for the geocentric model? In no way. What the analysis does is to require the presence of an ether for the geocentric
model. If there is a light-bearing medium, then the aberration angle is defined by the flow of the medium, not by the relative motion of star and earth; and the problem is solved.
Now it may be objected that science in general and relativity in particular have "proven" that there is no ether. This is actually not the case. The truth is that all materials drag light to some degree. This is because the speed of light is different through different materials. Light travels fastest through the vacuum of space and travels slower through glass and
water. One could even go so far as to say that the speed of light is zero
through a substance which absorbs light (e.g., black paint). So the air drags light along with it just as do water and glass, actig just like an ether even if there were no ether.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-08-06 18:22 ]</font>

[Gsquare]

Thanks for expaining your position further, Dunash.

On 2002-08-06 18:20, Dunash wrote:
If we take the strict relativistic view of the geocentric explanation, we run into a problem. Instead of the aberration angle increasing as the speed of the star past the earth increases, what we see instead appears as a rotation of the star. A similar analysis has been done for the non-relativistic case, and it is not that difficult to see.

I've seen this supposed explanation on another physics forum and I believe it contains errors. Were you the one who posted it?

The light ray which hits the earth will still appear to come straight from the star. Does this cause a severe problem for the geocentric model? In no way. What the analysis does is to require the presence of an ether for the geocentric
model. If there is a light-bearing medium, then the aberration angle is defined by the flow of the medium, not by the relative motion of star and earth; and the problem is solved.

I have no problems with the possibility of ether (esp. in a quantum vacuum sense); however....
Obviously, you are resurrecting ether because it is a necessary requirement along with this new 'rotation' hypothesis in order to validate or to preserve the possibility of orbital geocentrism? Correct?

Now it may be objected that science in general and relativity in particular have "proven" that there is no ether. This is actually not the case.

** Here's a major point I think you need to consider, Dunash. It is not at all necessary to have anything resembling a 'no ether' proof in order to show the erroneousness of geocentrism. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

G^2



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-08-07 22:38 ]</font>