Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism

[trth_skr]

Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism


I got into a bit of a match with Stephen M. Barr on Free Republic. In response to an article reviewing Galileo Was Wrong Dr. Barr made some insulting statements about Dr. Robert Bennett and Robert Sungenis, Ph. D., as well as making condenscending statements regarding the book (which he has not read). Robert Sungenis, has responded..., and finished by challenging Dr. Barr to a public debate:

I [Robert Sungenis] hereby challenge Stephen Barr to an open, public and verbal debate on the issue of geocentrism (6/29/2006).

Is Dr. Barr up to the task?

Read Robert's comments to Dr. Barr.

Mark Wyatt

[Thanatos]

The Geocentrism argument? How quaint. I'm cataloging my 'the universe just might be more than 6000 years old' as we speak. Frankly though, I doubt the moderators will tolerate this kind of nonsense for very long.

[Van Rijn]

Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism

Okay, you really didn't explain yourself well in the OP, but from a quick scan of the "veritas-Catholic" blog, it looks like you are pushing a Geocentric model based on some book or other. There appears to be a quoted dialog between a R. Sungenis (making various religious comments - not a good sign for this discussion) and a Stephen Barr, who from what I can tell, is pointing out some of the more obvious problems with the Relativistic Absolutist Acentric Geocentric (RAAG) model.

In any event, the ATM forum is for the presentation of unconventional astronomy concepts so please present your scientific arguments. Expect to be challenged and be ready to answer the challenges.

'Course, if this is just to be another philosophical argument over the RAAG model, I couldn't care less, but you might get some takers.

[worzel]

In the excerpts from the book "Galileo Was Wrong", in chapter 5 - "Albert Einstein and the Interferometers" - Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett say that Albert Einstien formulated relativity to preserve Copernican cosmology in the face of evidence that strongly indicated it was flawed. They are referring to the Michelson-Morlely experiment, and the fact that no difference between the speed of light could be detected in different directions and at different times.

So Sungenis and Bennett would have us believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment is strong evidence that the earth does not move. But Einstein's theory didn't just explain away this awkard result, it postulated that the result would be the same whether you were moving or not. For the MM experiment to actually be evidence for an immobile earth, the result should be different when the experiment is performed while moving relative to the earth. Relativity postulates that the result will be the same.

Have Sungenis and Bennett reveiwed the literature for measurements of the speed of light in frames of reference that are in motion with respect to the earth to see whether those experiments support their theory or relativity?

[Vermonter]

I should know this, but why do Geocentrists always rely on the Michelson-Morley experiment as definitive proof? What was that experiment supposed to show?

[Eta C]

In a nutshell, and somewhat simplified, the MM experiment was supposed to show the motion of the Earth through the ether that was, at the time, believed to be the medium in which electromagnetic radiation propagated (as air is to sound waves for example). The experiment found a null result. That is, you couldn't determine from it that the Earth was moving. Geocentrists take the simplistic and naive view that this result shows that the Earth is stationary. The physics explanation is that light needs no medium to propagate in (the ether doesn't exist), that the speed of light is constant to all observers, and that the null result is expected regardless of motion. Of course, one need only repeat the MM experiment off the Earth to demonstrate the shallowness of the Geocentrists' arguments (as if that wasn't already self-evident).

[trth_skr]

In a nutshell, and somewhat simplified, the MM experiment was supposed to show the motion of the Earth through the ether that was, at the time, believed to be the medium in which electromagnetic radiation propagated (as air is to sound waves for example). The experiment found a null result. That is, you couldn't determine from it that the Earth was moving. Geocentrists take the simplistic and naive view that this result shows that the Earth is stationary. The physics explanation is that light needs no medium to propagate in (the ether doesn't exist), that the speed of light is constant to all observers, and that the null result is expected regardless of motion. Of course, one need only repeat the MM experiment off the Earth to demonstrate the shallowness of the Geocentrists' arguments (as if that wasn't already self-evident).

Actually, this is not true. Michelson-Morley did not get a null result. This si called lying with statistics. They hypothesized a 30 km/sec. velocity, but obtained a 4 km/sec. velocity. Thererfor they rejected the hypothesis, and called it a null resuilt. Dayton C. Miller and a host of others replicated MM results (in fact Miller's typical velocity was 10 km/sec.).

I.e., something was happening (ether drag either from a rotating universe or a rotating earth).

Mark
www.vreitas-catholic.blogspot.com
www.geocentrism.com

[papageno]

Actually, this is not true. Michelson-Morley did not get a null result. This si called lying with statistics. They hypothesized a 30 km/sec. velocity, but obtained a 4 km/sec. velocity. Thererfor they rejected the hypothesis, and called it a null resuilt. Dayton C. Miller and a host of others replicated MM results (in fact Miller's typical velocity was 10 km/sec.).

What were the experimental errors?

And what about more recent experimental tests?

[Eta C]

Indeed. There have been recent MM-type experiments with modern equipment that have verified the null result with uncertainites down to the part per million level or better. I don't have the references at hand (I'm home and it's late) but I will provide some examples tomorrow (Trust me. I'm a doctor). Why is it that many ATM types seem to think that experiments are only done once and that scientists never bother to push the limit further? Those of us who are working or have worked as scientists know that all experiments are repeated with higher and higher levels of precision. We do this because we want to find the point where it breaks as this usually indicates new physics (or new science as the case may be.) So far all repetitions of the MM experiment are consistent with a null result.

[Thanatos]

You are in good company, Eta C. The argument is a cowpie, and the cows know it. Papageno was all over this. My example is Gravity Probe B.

[trth_skr]

Indeed. There have been recent MM-type experiments with modern equipment that have verified the null result with uncertainites down to the part per million level or better. I don't have the references at hand (I'm home and it's late) but I will provide some examples tomorrow (Trust me. I'm a doctor). Why is it that many ATM types seem to think that experiments are only done once and that scientists never bother to push the limit further? Those of us who are working or have worked as scientists know that all experiments are repeated with higher and higher levels of precision. We do this because we want to find the point where it breaks as this usually indicates new physics (or new science as the case may be.) So far all repetitions of the MM experiment are consistent with a null result.

There are many recent experiments, and these are reviewed in Galileo Was Wrong. Some of them appear to support the current state of cosmology (i.e., Hils and Hall), but these were performed in metal shielded and/or evacuated apparati (even some of these had non-null results). Dayton C. Miller warned against this in the 1930's and Galaev recently, predicting the outcomes. Dayton C. Miller (and Galaev) warned that overly solid structures (especially metallic) shield against the [hypothetical] aether and that evacuated systems do not allow for sufficient aether drag (i.e., Fizeau).

Dr. Bennett presents almost 250 pages of experiments and observations and rates them (support, reject, neutral) for compliance to geocentrism, heliocentrism, aether theory, special relativity, and general relativity, then also analyzes them for the heliocentrist position vs. the geocentrist. This is in addition to the more general discussion in the first 11 chapters of many of these experiments / observations.

Mark Wyatt

[papageno]

There are many recent experiments, and these are reviewed in Galileo Was Wrong. Some of them appear to support the current state of cosmology (i.e., Hils and Hall), but these were performed in metal shielded and/or evacuated apparati (even some of these had non-null results). Dayton C. Miller warned against this in the 1930's and Galaev recently, predicting the outcomes. Dayton C. Miller (and Galaev) warned that overly solid structures (especially metallic) shield against the [hypothetical] aether and that evacuated systems do not allow for sufficient aether drag (i.e., Fizeau).

This begs the question whether this aether is the medium for electromagnetic waves or not.
After all, EM waves have no trouble at all travelling in evacuated systems or inside metallic shields.
Anyway, experiments can be done to see whether there is a difference between open air and enclosed or evacuated systems.

By the way, what were the experimental errors?

[Eta C]

Here are links to some of the Physics News Updates on recent MM-type experiments. The releases also contain links to the relevant journal articles should anyone want to peruse those.

A German group that uses cryogenic optical resonators

Further results from this group. Of note, this experiment shows "that special relativity passes their high-precision test with flying colors: the speed of light does not depend on its direction of propagation to within 1.7 parts in 10^15, an accuracy about three times higher compared to the best previous experiment." The link also mentions several space based experiments that will eventually put the kibosh to objections that previous experiments were only done on Earth. This group published some of its results in Physical Review Letters in a paper Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators PRL V91, Number 2, 11 July 2003 page 020401-1

For an American flavorA group at Stanford used microwaves instead of the lasers the German group had used. They found no anisotropy to the 10^-13 level.

[trth_skr]

Here are links to some of the Physics News Updates on recent MM-type experiments. The releases also contain links to the relevant journal articles should anyone want to peruse those.

A German group that uses cryogenic optical resonators

Further results from this group. Of note, this experiment shows "that special relativity passes their high-precision test with flying colors: the speed of light does not depend on its direction of propagation to within 1.7 parts in 10^15, an accuracy about three times higher compared to the best previous experiment." The link also mentions several space based experiments that will eventually put the kibosh to objections that previous experiments were only done on Earth. This group published some of its results in Physical Review Letters in a paper Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators PRL V91, Number 2, 11 July 2003 page 020401-1

...

As for the Holger Muller experiments, here is a quote from Galileo Was Wrong:

The experimental care taken in this experiment is impressive, but futile, if intended to detect the influence of the ether on c. Lessons learned long before have been forgotten. The experimenter’s text below indicates the missteps taken: solid silica and sapphire crystal; and vacuum-sealed, instead of a gaseous medium.

At the core of the experimental setup is an optical cavity fabricated from fused silica (L = 3 cm, 20 kHz line width) which is continuously rotated on a precision air bearing turntable. Its frequency is compared to that of a stationary cavity oriented north-south (L = 10 cm, 10 kHz line width). Each cavity is mounted inside a thermally shielded vacuum chamber.

The apparatus diagram, although only a schematic, indicates the clutter of support and ancillary structures used in a vain attempt at accuracy. It is also a safe assumption the experiment was performed in a laboratory, buried in the bowels of a building. Can sunlight be detected in a windowless cellar? What value would be placed on a null result of < 10-15 for sunlight detection, if the cellar shielded the detector from the sun? Would we say there is no sunlight, because the experiment was done in darkness? ...

Mark

P.S. I am not sure if the Lipa experiment was reviewed. I will check the references.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Two authors of religious books locked in a shouting match. Is this your idea of entertainment? I'll go make some popcorn!

[papageno]

The experimental care taken in this experiment is impressive, but futile, if intended to detect the influence of the ether on c. Lessons learned long before have been forgotten. The experimenter’s text below indicates the missteps taken: solid silica and sapphire crystal; and vacuum-sealed, instead of a gaseous medium.

At the core of the experimental setup is an optical cavity fabricated from fused silica (L = 3 cm, 20 kHz line width) which is continuously rotated on a precision air bearing turntable. Its frequency is compared to that of a stationary cavity oriented north-south (L = 10 cm, 10 kHz line width). Each cavity is mounted inside a thermally shielded vacuum chamber.

The apparatus diagram, although only a schematic, indicates the clutter of support and ancillary structures used in a vain attempt at accuracy. It is also a safe assumption the experiment was performed in a laboratory, buried in the bowels of a building. Can sunlight be detected in a windowless cellar? What value would be placed on a null result of < 10-15 for sunlight detection, if the cellar shielded the detector from the sun? Would we say there is no sunlight, because the experiment was done in darkness? ...

Where does the author of the book actually show that the experiments are misguided?

And what about answering my questions?


Off-topic: what is wrong with the quote tags?

[Eta C]

The experimental care taken in this experiment is impressive, but futile, if intended to detect the influence of the ether on c. Lessons learned long before have been forgotten. The experimenter’s text below indicates the missteps taken: solid silica and sapphire crystal; and vacuum-sealed, instead of a gaseous medium.

At the core of the experimental setup is an optical cavity fabricated from fused silica (L = 3 cm, 20 kHz line width) which is continuously rotated on a precision air bearing turntable. Its frequency is compared to that of a stationary cavity oriented north-south (L = 10 cm, 10 kHz line width). Each cavity is mounted inside a thermally shielded vacuum chamber.

The apparatus diagram, although only a schematic, indicates the clutter of support and ancillary structures used in a vain attempt at accuracy. It is also a safe assumption the experiment was performed in a laboratory, buried in the bowels of a building. Can sunlight be detected in a windowless cellar? What value would be placed on a null result of < 10-15 for sunlight detection, if the cellar shielded the detector from the sun? Would we say there is no sunlight, because the experiment was done in darkness? ...

Well, might I suggest you send that "assessment" on to the physicists in question. I'm sure it will be well received (not. more likely ignored as it should be). First off, this was not an attempt to detect the influence of any "ether" on the speed of light. That concept went out the window after the first MM experiment. There is no reference to any "ether" as none is required. I challenge you to look through their papers and find one reference to the word "ether" used in a non-historical way. What the are doing is probing the limits of SR and Lorentz invariance to see where they break down and finding to a high degree of accuracy that the predictions of the theory match the experimental results. Here's a question. How does your book predict the results would differ if the experiment were done in a "gaseous medium?" How would they differ if done in orbit around the Earth?

[upriver]

"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator." (Phys.Rev.Lett. 95 (2005)

We report on a test of Lorentz invariance performed by comparing the resonance frequencies of one stationary optical resonator and one continuously rotating on a precision air bearing turntable.
Special attention is paid to the control of rotation induced systematic effects.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097

Here is an interpetation of the data.

"Indications for a preferred reference frame from an ether-drift experiment."
"Summarizing: we have presented a fully model-independent analysis of the extensive ether-drift observations reported in Ref.[1]. Without constraining a hypothetical preferred frame to coincide with the CMB, the experimental data select a definite (absolute) value of the average declination angle | | ∼ 43o and a RMS parameter lying in the typical range 20 · 10−10 ≤ |(1/2− +)| ≤ 60 · 10−10. This might represent the first modern indication for the existence of a referred reference frame and for a non-zero anisotropy of the speed of light. At the same time, since this range we have found for the RMS parameter is consistent with the theoretical prediction ∼ 42 · 10−10 of Refs.[5, 6], we emphasize once more the importance of a fully model-independent analysis of the data."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0511/0511160.pdf


This one is old but nobody has explained it.
Sidereal variations, Roland DeWitt. http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/belgacom.htm

[trth_skr]

This begs the question whether this aether is the medium for electromagnetic waves or not.
After all, EM waves have no trouble at all travelling in evacuated systems or inside metallic shields.
Anyway, experiments can be done to see whether there is a difference between open air and enclosed or evacuated systems.

According to Dayton C. Miller and Galaev (at elast) there is a difference.

By the way, what were the experimental errors?

For MM (1887) I believe they could detect .01 fringe, expected 0.4, and measured 0.01-0.02, definitely not zero (3-4 km/s).

For Dayton Miller, his device was much higher resolution and he measured 10 km /sec. (not sure the fringe count offhand).

Mark

[trth_skr]

Well, might I suggest you send that "assessment" on to the physicists in question. I'm sure it will be well received (not. more likely ignored as it should be). First off, this was not an attempt to detect the influence of any "ether" on the speed of light. That concept went out the window after the first MM experiment. There is no reference to any "ether" as none is required. I challenge you to look through their papers and find one reference to the word "ether" used in a non-historical way. What the are doing is probing the limits of SR and Lorentz invariance to see where they break down and finding to a high degree of accuracy that the predictions of the theory match the experimental results. Here's a question. How does your book predict the results would differ if the experiment were done in a "gaseous medium?" How would they differ if done in orbit around the Earth?

Well, might I suggest you send that "assessment" on to the physicists in question. I'm sure it will be well received (not. more likely ignored as it should be). First off, this was not an attempt to detect the influence of any "ether" on the speed of light. That concept went out the window after the first MM experiment.

Perhaps incorrectly.

There is no reference to any "ether" as none is required. I challenge you to look through their papers and find one reference to the word "ether" used in a non-historical way. What the are doing is probing the limits of SR and Lorentz invariance to see where they break down and finding to a high degree of accuracy that the predictions of the theory match the experimental results.

And Dr. Bennett (not shown) explains the position as described by you, but also interprets it in terms of ether theory. If there is an ether, the results are consistent with ether shielding and consiistenty with Michelson Morley (lightly shielded) and Dayton C. Miller (generally unshielded).

Here's a question. How does your book predict the results would differ if the experiment were done in a "gaseous medium?" How would they differ if done in orbit around the Earth?

In a gaseous medium (and unshielded), they should be consistent with, say, Dayton Miller (and various modern counterparts).

In the case of earth orbit, I would suppose it would depend upon the velocity of the apparatus relative to the [rotating] ether.

Mark

[papageno]

According to Dayton C. Miller and Galaev (at elast) there is a difference.

Some reference would be helpful.

For MM (1887) I believe they could detect .01 fringe, expected 0.4, and measured 0.01-0.02, definitely not zero (3-4 km/s).

So, they expected 0.4 fringes, but measured (0.02 +/- 0.01) fringes. Unless you are from the Ashmore's school of "thought" about experimental erros, that result is consistent with no effect detected.

For Dayton Miller, his device was much higher resolution and he measured 10 km /sec. (not sure the fringe count offhand).

I don't care about the fringes. What were the experimental errors?

[papageno]

This one is old but nobody has explained it.
Sidereal variations, Roland DeWitt. http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/belgacom.htm

I found a description here:

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. 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).

On the the Physical Review On-Line Archive the closest I could find was the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment:

Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time


None of the fundamental experiments on which the restricted principle of relativity is based requires for their explanation that the classical concept of absolute time be modified; the present experiment was devised to test directly whether time satisfies the requirements of relativity. It depends on the fact that if a pencil of homogeneous light is split into two components which are made to interfere after traversing paths of different length, their relative phases will depend on the translational velocity of the optical system unless the Lorentz-Einstein transformation equations are valid. Hence, such a system at a point on the earth should give rise to an interference pattern which varies periodically as the velocity of the point changes in consequence of the rotation and revolution of the earth. The effect to be expected for a small velocity is so very small that it has been necessary to devise a special source of light, an interferometer of great stability and a refinement of the technic of measuring displacements in the interference pattern. With the apparatus finally employed, we have shown that there is no effect corresponding to absolute time unless the velocity of the solar system in space is no more than about half that of the earth in its orbit. Using this null result and that of the Michelson-Morley experiment we derive the Lorentz-Einstein transformations, which are tantamount to the relativity principle.

and a more recent version:

Improved Kennedy-Thorndike experiment to test special relativity


We have carried out a modern version of the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment by searching for sidereal variations between the frequency of a laser locked to an l2 reference line and a laser locked to the resonance frequency of a highly stable cavity. No variations were found at the level of 2×10-13. This represents a 300-fold improvement over the original Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and allows the Lorentz transformations to be deduced entirely from experiment at an accuracy level of 70 ppm.

[trth_skr]

[quote=papageno]Some reference would be helpful.

Here is Galeav:

Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave

Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001

I believe Galeav himself references the Miller case.

So, they expected 0.4 fringes, but measured (0.02 +/- 0.01) fringes. Unless you are from the Ashmore's school of "thought" about experimental erros, that result is consistent with no effect detected.

I think you miss the point. They were expecting 0.4 fringes based on the presupposition that earth is travelling at 30 km/sec. through the ether. They were also trying to demonstrate that earth was travelling though the ether. In getting 0.02 +/- .01 fringes, they showed that earth was not travelling at 30 km/sec. through the ether. I.e. they measured something, yet they called it a null result, but only based on undemonstrated presuppositions.

I don't care about the fringes. What were the experimental errors?

Therer are a ton of notes on experimental errors, but they are not as straight forward as you are asking for. Here is an example:

(Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 364, footnote 365):

R. J. Kennedy at the Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment held at Mount Wilson Observatory, Feb. 4-5, 1927, in

The Astrophysical Journal 68, 1928, 367-373; R. J. Kennedy, “A Refinement of the Michelson-Morley experiment,” Proc. National Academy of Science, 12, 621-629, 1926; R. J. Kennedy and E. M. Thorndike, Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time, Physical Review 42, 1932, 400- 418. They used an interferometer similar to Michelson’s but with different arm lengths and none at right angles to the others. They also kept the apparatus at 0.001 degree Celsius, as well as using photographs of the fringes for calibration. Kennedy and Thorndike are quite transparent, however, in their bias towards Relativity, stating: “With the apparatus finally employed, we have shown that there is no effect corresponding to absolute time unless the velocity of the solar system in space is no more than about half that of the Earth in its orbit. Using this null result and that of the Michelson-Morley experiment we derive the Lorentz-Einstein transformations, which are tantamount to the relativity principle….there can be little doubt that the experiment yields a strictly null result.” Perhaps Kennedy’s choice of language, “there can be little doubt” betrays the fact to the keen observer that, unless their result was zero, then at least a “little doubt” exists as to whether there, was, in fact, a completely null result. In actuality, Kennedy and Thorndike did not find a “null” result, but one which showed a resistance (i.e., the ether moving against the Earth) at “10 ± 10 km per sec,” which in terms of these kinds of experiments, is not “scarce” at all. So how did they justify interpreting this as a “null” result? They did so by comparing their results against the hypothesized speed of receding nebulae: “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; it is of the same order of precision as that of the Michelson-Morley experiment.” Múnera adds: “since Kennedy was looking for shifts produced by 90° rotations from a reference position, equation DA = 2Acos2ωN tells that, if RA points north, the expected shift tends to zero when cos2 ωN ≈ 0, i.e., when ωN is close to being a multiple of 45°. For September 16 at Pasadena this occurs four times during the day, around 02:30, 08:50, 17:05 and 18:30 local apparent time….Kennedy says that ‘the experiment was performed….at various times of day, but oftenest at the time when Miller’s conclusions require the greatest effect’ which for ‘the middle two weeks of September, when the present work was done corresponds to local solar times varying from 6:30 A.M. to 5:30 A.M’ (Kennedy, p. 628). This time period seems to be midway between 02:30 and 08:50, but Kennedy does not explicitly state the initial orientation of his interferometer, so that we cannot draw any definite conclusions” (Héctor Múnera, “Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Difference Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space,” Apeiron, Vol. 5, Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998, p. 46).

The point is ultimately that the researchers were looknig for either the speed of the earth around the sun (30 km/sec), the speed of the solar system through space (100s-1000s of km.sec) or the speed of the rotation of the earth (1000 mph), but all got relatively similar results (i.e., 4-10 km /sec) for the linear cases. This is not a null result in the absolute.

Mark

[Nereid]

What is the (ATM) position that you intend to present (and defend) in this thread, trth_skr?

Here are some that I'm guessing may be on the table:

- the existence of some kind of (a)ether, in the sense of the medium through which EM radiation propogates, has not been excluded, by various MM (and other) experiments done to date

- the theories and hypotheses which various MM (and other) experiments were intended (and designed) to test do not include some variants of 'geocentrism'

- the results from various MM (and other) experiments are consistent with 'geocentrism'

- GR is consistent with 'geocentrism'.

Could you please clarify, trth_skr?

[papageno]

Some reference would be helpful.

Here is Galeav:

Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave

Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001

I believe Galeav himself references the Miller case.

Don't you have something more accessible?

So, they expected 0.4 fringes, but measured (0.02 +/- 0.01) fringes. Unless you are from the Ashmore's school of "thought" about experimental errors, that result is consistent with no effect detected.

I think you miss the point. They were expecting 0.4 fringes based on the presupposition that earth is travelling at 30 km/sec. through the ether. They were also trying to demonstrate that earth was travelling though the ether. In getting 0.02 +/- .01 fringes, they showed that earth was not travelling at 30 km/sec. through the ether. I.e. they measured something, yet they called it a null result, but only based on undemonstrated presuppositions.

You missed the part where (0.02 +/- 0.01) fringes is consistent with 0 fringes.
Unless you can provide a well-founded theory predicting a non-null result and you can show that their estimate of the
experimental errors is wrong and that the actual uncertainty is significantly smaller than 0.0065 fringes, saying that their result is consistent with no effect detected is entirely justified.

I don't care about the fringes. What were the experimental errors?

Therer are a ton of notes on experimental errors, but they are not as straight forward as you are asking for.

I just asked for a number; for example (10 +/- x) km/s.

Here is an example:

(Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 364, footnote 365):

[font=TimesNewRomanPSMT]

R. J. Kennedy at the Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment held at Mount Wilson Observatory, Feb. 4-5, 1927, in The Astrophysical Journal 68, 1928, 367-373; R. J. Kennedy, “A Refinement of the Michelson-Morley experiment,” Proc. National Academy of Science, 12, 621-629, 1926; R. J. Kennedy and E. M. Thorndike, Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time, Physical Review [font=TimesNewRomanPSMT]42, 1932, 400- 418. They used an interferometer similar to Michelson’s but with different arm lengths and none at right angles to the others. They also kept the apparatus at 0.001 degree Celsius, as well as using photographs of the fringes for calibration. Kennedy and Thorndike are quite transparent, however, in their bias towards Relativity, stating: “With the apparatus finally employed, we have shown that there is no effect corresponding to absolute time unless the velocity of the solar system in space is no more than about half that of the Earth in its orbit. Using this null result and that of the Michelson-Morley experiment we derive the Lorentz-Einstein transformations, which are tantamount to the relativity principle….there can be little doubt that the experiment yields a strictly null result.” Perhaps Kennedy’s choice of language, “there can be little doubt” betrays the fact to the keen observer that, unless their result was zero, then at least a “little doubt” exists as to whether there, was, in fact, a completely null result.

Welcome to the world of experimental science, where no measurement -however accurate- is without uncertainty.
What matters is not the existence of "a little doubt", but how little the doubt is.

]
In actuality, Kennedy and Thorndike did not find a “null” result, but one which showed a resistance (i.e., the ether moving against the Earth) at “10 ± 10 km per sec,” which in terms of these kinds of experiments, is not “scarce” at all. So how did they justify interpreting this as a “null” result?

By having an error on the measurement as large as the effect measured.
Considering that this is not the only test of Special Relativity, and that the other tests are consistent with the null result, saying that the experiment gave a null result is the conclusion that requires the shortest inductive leap.

]

They did so by comparing their results against the hypothesized speed of receding nebulae: “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; it is of the same order of precision as that of the Michelson-Morley experiment.” Múnera adds: “since Kennedy was looking for shifts produced by 90° rotations from a reference position, equation DA = 2Acos2ωN tells that, if RA points north, the expected shift tends to zero when cos2 ωN ≈ 0, i.e., when ωN is close to being a multiple of 45°. For September 16 at Pasadena this occurs four times during the day, around 02:30, 08:50, 17:05 and 18:30 local apparent time….Kennedy says that ‘the experiment was performed….at various times of day, but oftenest at the time when Miller’s conclusions require the greatest effect’ which for ‘the middle two weeks of September, when the present work was done corresponds to local solar times varying from 6:30 A.M. to 5:30 A.M’ (Kennedy, p. 628). This time period seems to be midway between 02:30 and 08:50, but Kennedy does not explicitly state the initial orientation of his interferometer, so that we cannot draw any definite conclusions” (Héctor Múnera, “Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Difference Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space,” Apeiron, Vol. 5, Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998, p. 46).

The point is ultimately that the researchers were looknig for either the speed of the earth around the sun (30 km/sec), the speed of the solar system through space (100s-1000s of km.sec) or the speed of the rotation of the earth (1000 mph), but all got relatively similar results (i.e., 4-10 km /sec) for the linear cases. This is not a null result in the absolute.

Unless you can show that they significantly overestimated the experimental error, then their result is entirely consistent with no effect detected.



[Oh for Google's sake. What's wrong with the editor?
I really can't spend all night trying to fix tags without success.]

[Ignoramus]

It would seem that the subject is still axctively being worked on in Australia!

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0610/0610076.pdf[/URL]e/physics/pdf/0610/0610076.pdf
A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion
and Gravitational Waves Detected
Reginald T. Cahill
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia
E-mail: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Published: Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006.
Data from a new experiment measuring the anisotropy of the one-way speed of
EM waves in a coaxial cable, gives the speed of light as 300,000&#177;400&#177;20km/s
in a measured direction RA=5.5&#177;2 hrs, Dec=70&#177;10◦S, is shown to be in excellent
agreement with the results from seven previous anisotropy experiments,
particularly those of Miller (1925/26), and even those of Michelson and Morley
(1887). The Miller gas-mode interferometer results, and those from the
RF coaxial cable experiments of Torr and Kolen (1983), De Witte (1991) and
the new experiment all reveal the presence of gravitational waves, as indicated
by the last &#177; variations above, but of a kind different from those supposedly
predicted by General Relativity. Miller repeated the Michelson-Morley
1887 gas-mode interferometer experiment and again detected the anisotropy
of the speed of light, primarily in the years 1925/1926 atop Mt.Wilson, California.
The understanding of the operation of the Michelson interferometer in
gas-mode was only achieved in 2002 and involved a calibration for the interferometer
that necessarily involved Special Relativity effects and the refractive
index of the gas in the light paths. The results demonstrate the reality of
the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction as an observer independent relativistic effect.
A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of light
is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz symmetry —
this is explained. All eight experiments and theory show that we have both
anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic effects, and that a dynamical
3-space exists — that absolute motion through that space has been repeatedly
observed since 1887. These developments completely change fundamental
physics and our understanding of reality. “Modern” vacuum-mode Michelson
interferometers, particularly the long baseline terrestrial versions, are, by design
flaw, incapable of detecting the anisotropy effect and the gravitational
waves.

[tusenfem]

wow, what an abstract, stating that there is an anisotropy and then giving only one number!

[Ignoramus]

wow, what an abstract, stating that there is an anisotropy and then giving only one number!

I think I saw a few more in the paper

[tusenfem]

Well than at least it is a very badly written paper, if you do not even give proof in the abstract that you are truly measuring an asymmetry. I will not even bother downloading it from arxiv.