Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2018, 09:48:13 AM »
Trolling is not allowed in the upper forums, please take notice of this fact.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect = the existence of ether, since the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

The existence of ether means a different index of refraction than that assumed by the author of that video: the claims he made in that miserable video are totally debunked.

It is as simple as this.

You are going to have to explain the fact that Sirius stays synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2018, 09:54:21 AM »
Trolling is not allowed in the upper forums, please take notice of this fact.
Sorry, what trolling? I simply asked for an answer to a question. You have claimed something tremendously important, and which would have widespread implications for science. Where then is this discussed by scientists?

Regarding Sirius, the title of the thread is "What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?".
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 10:09:37 AM by edby »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2018, 10:44:00 AM »
"Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society. As also confirmed by various measurement standards, which include the Journal Citation Reports impact factor and the journal h-index proposed by Google Scholar, many physicists and other scientists consider Physical Review Letters to be one of the most prestigious journals in the field of physics."

Ruderfer's classic experiment was published in the Physical Review Letters Journal in 1960.

You don't have to explain me the value of PRL, I have published there some papers myself. But not all papers in such journal are of the same value. You have to look also for the impact of the specific paper on the scientific community. And his paper (anyway the only one in a Journal of that rank) has more or less no impact. It's cited by himself, some conference contributions, nothing outstanding. Overall about 30 citations in 60 years, most of them in the early years after the publication.

Around that time it was still quite popular to speculate about the ether, but that was not a discussion with high impact on the field of relativistic physics.

This Ruderfer guy seems to noticed that himself. His publications (nothing published with any co-authors, seems he was a complete outsider of the scientific community from the beginning), went more and in the direction of obvious pseudo-science, speculation and even parapsychology.

He was never member of any university. His affiliation for the PRL paper is "Dimensions, Incorporated, Brooklyn, New York". Whatever this is, a least not a scientific institute with any reputation.

His first paper from 1952 is titled "TELEPATHY AND THE QUANTUM". I think it's not worth spending any time on whatever this guy measured or calculated...   

Edit:

I have to add, that he published a paper in Science already 1949. Also something very wired. It seems he tried to measure the validity of the conservation of energy law over life span of a living being. I think that already laid out the path he was following throughout his whole "career"...
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 11:33:40 AM by hexagon »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2018, 11:55:08 AM »
Hexagon, this is very useful. It seems odd then to say that ‘The author of the video has not done his homework at all’. This usually means that there is some elementary fact the author should have known, but didn’t know because s/he hadn’t ‘done the homework’. In this case, I think we can clearly conclude that the author cannot be blamed in this case. No one could reasonably be expected to know the existence and conclusions of this obscure paper.

Separate from this is the supposed bearing this would have for the altitude of Polaris, and the widespread implications for astronomy and astrophysics. We need citations for subsequent work on this.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2018, 12:01:10 PM »
His publications (nothing published with any co-authors, seems he was a complete outsider of the scientific community from the beginning), went more and in the direction of obvious pseudo-science, speculation and even parapsychology.

Then, you'll be enthralled to find out that the existence of ether was proven mathematically by one of the top scientists of the 20th century: E.T. Whittaker.

FRS
Copley medal (the most prestigious honorary award in British science)
Sylvester medal

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (five consecutive messages)

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.

"Whittaker proved the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control.
 
In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."

Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that,

"the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an ondulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity ... [and] the waves will be longitudinal (top) ... These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light ... [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater ..."

“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

"In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance."

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances."


One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2039636#msg2039636

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039

Fields can be described by a U(1) group transformation: the modified Maxwell equations (actually, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations).

Potentials (ether theory) can ONLY be described by SU(2) group transformations (and higher).

The group algebra underlying the commonly used Maxwell equations is U(1): but this only relates to the ripples in the sea of ether.

The Sagnac effect, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect can only be described by SU(2) group transformations (the quaternion formulation of the Maxwell equations).

Whittaker managed to show the hidden structure of the potential: the set of bidirectional longitudinal waves which rule electromagnetism and terrestrial gravity.

The interferometer of the Sagnac experiment is a MULTIPLY-CONNECTED region and is an example of a topological obstruction.

That is, the Sagnac experiment can only be described by the SU(2) group of transformations, by the original set of the Maxwell equations, by potentials (ether).


There is only one thing left to do: to safely and strongly flush the toilet with the RE video right into the sewer system.


Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2018, 12:27:29 PM »
But this is pre-Einstein stuff... Of course at that time the ether was under discussion. People tried to proof it or argued against it. But now we are more then 100 years later and all this has be shown to be not correct and irrelevant. Only some freaks are digging out old stuff like this and convince themselves they made some great discoveries. And also this guy is meanwhile forgotten, no one cares which prizes he has won. And he is definitely not one of the top scientists of the last century. 

That's science, if something is new you go through a time of controversial discussions. Several ideas, models, theories, experimental data and so on are published, some of them in heavy contradiction to each other. But over time you see how this converges into a coherent picture. And the question of ether is long ago solved and shown to be irrelevant. 

That's how it goes. Look at Einstein, he started a revolution in our view on the universe, but when the next revolution that completely changed our understanding on a very different scale started, he never accepted it. Suddenly he was the old guy, sticking to old concepts.   

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2018, 12:44:25 PM »
Thanks Hexagon. And returning to topic:
There is only one thing left to do: to safely and strongly flush the toilet with the RE video right into the sewer system.

Why? The observations of the video seem like standard textbook stuff, and almost self-evident. It is pointing out simply that as our latitude changes, so does the angle of Polaris. At 90% it is directly above, at the equator it is level with the horizon, at 45o, 45o and so on. That’s exactly what you would expect to see if it was a very long way away.

The objection is that the ether exists, and that refraction causes Polaris to seem far more distant than it actually is. But (a) if the ether exists, no subsequent paper has recognised or discussed such an astonishing effect and (b) how on earth do we explain the coincidence that latitude exactly corresponds to the altitude of Polaris. How could refraction explain that incredible coincidence?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 12:47:23 PM by edby »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2018, 01:16:08 PM »



One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)



Just to add something to this guy... I checked on Web of Science and Research Gate. And the result makes me a bit suspicious. There is a T.W. Barrett who indeed worked at Universities with high reputation, but not in physics or something related, but e.g. in Stanford at the Department of Psychiatry and Neurophysiology... All this papers (by the way its only 133 articles according Research Gate) are about some neuroscience stuff and related things. All papers 30-40 years old.

And then there are Papers by a Terence W. Barrett about stuff related to electromagnetism. But with a private address in Vienna VA as affiliation. I'm a bit suspicious that this are different guys, which can easily happen on Research Gate. Or he changed his research interest after his retirement, which could be. In any case he is not the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time. His work on this field has more or less no citations. Therefor no impact to and acknowledgment by the relevant scientific community. 

A cross check with Web of Science is also very interesting. A search for "Barrett, TW" and the affiliations given on Research Gate results in 78 publications, 70 of them until 1984. After that there is a gap of twenty years with no publications. Anyway, none of this publications are related to "electromagnetism". This is a really wired "greatest experts of all time"...
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 01:35:30 PM by hexagon »

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2018, 02:08:22 PM »
But this is pre-Einstein stuff...

You still don't get it.

Whittaker PROVED mathematically the hidden structure of the vector field: it is composed of a set of bidirectional longitudinal waves (scalar waves), the potential.

In 1959, Aharonov and Bohm proved the existence of the potential experimentally.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect, where potentials alone can interfere, even  in the absence of EM force fields, and produce real force effects in  charged particle systems. That is, the sole agent of the interference  of scalar potentials can induce EM changes, according to the  experimentally proven Aharonov-Bohm effect, even in the total absence  of EM force fields.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323049/

The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy, A. Tonomura (state of the art proofs of the Aharonov-Bohm effect)



The Maxwell-Lodge effect also proves the existence of the potential:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998993#msg1998993

Yes, Dr. Terence W. Barrett is one of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism ever:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terence_Barrett

Here is his introspective analysis of the topology of the Aharonov-Bohm effect:






Look at Einstein, he started a revolution in our view on the universe

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity.

Please update your knowledge on the subject.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008 (fake TSR experiments)

The easiest way to show that TGR is totally incorrect, is to derive the FULL set of the original Maxwell equations, which are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations"

A. Einstein, 1905

The unimaginable full ignorance of your idol, Einstein, is in full display.

He had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations.




We proceed to solve the common Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12).




This is the classic solution of Maxwell’s equation for a planar electromagnetic wave. As expected, the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic waves is the nominal speed of light c since there is no motion relative to the RCS (due to the restriction in the derivation of the common form of Maxwell’s equations).

What happens when a radiation source moves with respect to the RCS? It follows from the assumption of the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations (1.20) and (1.21) (namely: that they are valid in any inertial coordinate system) that the speed of propagation of any electromagnetic wave in all inertial coordinate systems is constant

and equals to the nominal speed of light c [solution (1.23) to equation (1.21)]. Thus, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves being constant in all inertial coordinate systems is not necessarily a measured observation. It is an assumption, a consequence of the assumed universal validity of the common Maxwell’s equations even for dynamic systems.

Suppose that a radiation source moves at a speed u in the positive direction of the x axis of the RCS. As engineers (hopefully with some common sense), and in agreement with the Galilean transformation where velocity vectors are additive, we would expect the electric field vector, of the propagating planar electromagnetic wave parallel to the x axis, to have the following form with respect to the RCS:



As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:











"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."


ONLY the original set of Maxwell equations, written in quaternion form, can describe the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the Sagnac effect.


How could refraction explain that incredible coincidence?

Let us take a look at another incredible coincidence.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

(b) how on earth do we explain the coincidence that latitude exactly corresponds to the altitude of Polaris.

Because the field of ether is LATITUDE DEPENDENT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791 (Dr. Yuri Galaev ether drift experiments)

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024144#msg2024144 (ten consecutive messages)


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2018, 02:32:50 PM »
Let us take a look at another incredible coincidence.
This refers to alleged faking of data. Are you saying the measurement of latitude is faked? How?
Quote
Because the field of ether is LATITUDE DEPENDENT.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791 (Dr. Yuri Galaev ether drift experiments)
Nowhere in that linked wall of text is any explanation of how ether is latitude dependent, nor how the observed measurements are consistent only with a parallel light source from the north.

Also, why have you not published work on this?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 02:39:36 PM by edby »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2018, 03:00:07 PM »
But this is pre-Einstein stuff...

You still don't get it.



It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand), mix up physics buzzwords and call mediocre scientists world leading experts. You're discussing things that (beside not being relevant for the topic here) simply outdated, not relevant in actual discussions.

I believe you, that you are honestly convinced to be into something big, but you aren't. If physics is your hobby, go to a university, take some lectures and discuss with the people there to get e feeling for what is really going on.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2018, 03:08:18 PM »
This refers to alleged faking of data.

It refers to the incredible gullibility of the RE who do accept the fakery of the data for the 1919 and 1922 solar eclipses, and yet will not agree that there are different indexes of refraction for each latitude.

Nowhere in that linked wall of text is any explanation of how ether is latitude dependent

I always include the necessary details.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

On page 218, a formula for the latitude dependent ether drift.

This is the formula published by Michelson:



sinΦ, where Φ is the latitude

This turns out to be the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift on the interferometer.

nor how the observed measurements are consistent only with a parallel light source from the north.

The author of the video made certain conclusions and deductions based on FAULTY and ERRONEOUS total vacuum of outer space model.

The existence of the ether shows that there are latitude dependent indexes of refraction.

This changes everything.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2018, 03:19:08 PM »
It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand)

I understand them.

I was able to derive the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

Here is my global arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


and call mediocre scientists world leading experts.

Dr. Maurice Allais, the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

"...the failure of the world's physicists to find such a (satisfactory) theory, after many years of intensive research," says Dirac, "leads me to think that the aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and to see in the Aether a new hope for the future".

Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933
Scientific American, The Evolution of Physicists Picture of Nature, May 1963

“What? Do you mean to tell me that I can tell you how
much magnetic field there is inside of here by measuring
currents through here and here – through wires which
are entirely outside – through wires in which there is no
magnetic field... In quantum mechanical interference experiments
there can be situations in which classically there
would be no expected influence whatever. But nevertheless
there is an influence. Is it action at distance? No, A is
as real as B-realer, whatever that means.”

R. Feynman


“throughout most of 20th century the Heaviside-Hertz form of Maxwell’s equations were taught to college students all over the world. The reason is quite obvious: the Heaviside-Hertz form is simpler, and exhibits an appealing near symmetry between E and H. With the widespread use of this vector-potential-less version of Maxwell’s equations, there arouse what amounted to a dogma: that the electromagnetic field resides in E and H. Where both of them vanish, there cannot be any electromagnetic effects on a charged particle. This dogma explains why when the Aharonov-Bohm article was published it met with general disbelief. . . E and H together do not completely describe the electromagnetic field, and. . . the vector potential cannot be totally eliminated in quantum mechanics. . . the field strengths underdescribe electromagnetism.”

C.N. Yang, Nobel prize laureate

“...the vector potential appears to give the most direct description of the physics. This becomes more apparent the more deeply we go into quantum theory. In the general theory of quantum electrodynamics, one takes the vector and scalar potentials as the fundamental quantities in a set of equations that replace the Maxwell equations: E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ”

(Feynman et al, 1989, chapter 15, section 5, The Feynman Lecture on Physics (Vol. 2), 1989)

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2018, 03:29:39 PM »
I always include the necessary details.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."
That website is by a disciple of Wilhelm Reich, i.e. orgone therapy. Not generally accepted by the scientific establishment, as I am sure you know. Perhaps the establishment is wrong, but in any case the reference does not establish any determinate relationship between latitude and refraction, which needed to be proven.

You need a formula which demonstrates that rays coming from a nearby Polaris will be refracted in a way precisely consistent with the actual observations (which I assume you don’t dispute).

I see one problem already. At the equator, Polaris appears on the horizon. So how was the light from a nearby source high up above the earth’s surface refracted so that it became parallel to it? How is that possible? The refraction, according to you, is at the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere and the ether.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2018, 03:30:02 PM »
It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand)

I understand them.

I was able to derive the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

Here is my global arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)



Looks like soon you will get the Fields Medal...

It really doesn't help that you put together random out of context citations. Also linking other post by you or links to pseudoscience institutes does not help...

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2018, 03:41:57 PM »
That website is by a disciple of Wilhelm Reich, i.e. orgone therapy.

Trolling again.

The quote is from Dr. Dayton Miller from Princeton University, Einstein's main rival.

He derived a clear and precise correlation between the dynamics of the ether drift and latitude of the Earth.

You need a formula

I need no such formula.

All I need to prove is the existence of ether. The rest is up to you.

The refraction, according to you, is at the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere and the ether.


The refraction is CONTINUOUS all the way to the surface of the Earth.

The Michelson-Gale interferometer was placed right on the ground in Clearing, Illinois, and yet recorded the latitude dependent ether drift (the Coriolis effect).


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2018, 03:42:32 PM »
This topic on the "other" board to which sandokhan is linking goes back 9 years, and holds some fascinating stuff.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0


Edit: And this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 03:49:11 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2018, 03:45:27 PM »
I need no such formula.
There we go again. Not up to FE to establish a model that works.

The refraction is CONTINUOUS all the way to the surface of the Earth.
So most of the refraction is not at the boundary of the ether and the earth's atmosphere?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 03:48:23 PM by edby »

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2018, 03:56:44 PM »
Not up to FE to establish a model that works.

No.

Such a formula would mean a appreciable investment of time and effort in order to derive it.

Once the existence of the ether drift is proven, we can also assume the existence of such a formula; to actually derive it for the sake of a simple thread is not worth it.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #39 on: May 30, 2018, 03:58:35 PM »
Moreover, the model would have to explain why, despite the latitude-dependent effects of refraction, the apparent angular distance of the same pair of stars is the same at any point on the earth. For example Polaris and Beta ursae minoris. On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole. But they don't. Right?

[post crossed]  Ah OK, still not up to FE to respond to any fatal objection. Fair enough.

Quote
Such a formula would mean a appreciable investment of time and effort in order to derive it.
I am sure it would.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 04:00:35 PM by edby »