7
« Last post by cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 08:01:14 PM »
1. Sagnac effect is a real phenomena.
2. Heliocentrists and relativists have to answer this question : If there is no aether what mechanics can explain Sagnac effect? Coriolis force? Of course not...
3. The amount of lagging of electromagnetic waves is consistent with the speed of aether's motion (a.k.a. alleged earth's rotation) for each latitude on the earth. So, either aether rotates around the earth or the earth rotates within motionless aether. In both cases aether exists.
4. Since aether obviously exists why we can't measure orbital motion of the earth? Because there is no orbital motion. But heliocentrists can't have rotation without orbital motion.
5. Now, look how author of that article interprets the result of MM experiment :
It was designed to reveal the speed of the Earth’s orbital motion through the hypothesized ether using the expected change in light speed arising from movement with or against the associated ether wind. The observed fringe shift was significantly less than what was expected as a result of the revolving Earth.
Utter bullshit!
6. So, once again for everyone :
Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX), but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.
This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!
Michelson didn't say they saw no evidence of shift. He said it was "probably" less than 16% of what would be expected from Earth's alleged orbital motion. That's not the same as saying there's no evidence of shift, or that the measured shift was within the margin of instrumental error. In fact, he did see a shift...
Even though this did not disprove the existence of the ether, *this was an extremely important discovery.* The commonly-accepted theories about how light propagates would not be valid if the Earth were moving through the ether at 5 km/s, so science was facing a kind of crisis because of this news.
The theories of the time proposed that light traveled through the ether, which the Earth moved through at 30 km/s. This theory came about after Maxwell summarized the equations of electromagnetism in 1860. Up to this point, the established laws of physics were invariant under Galilean transformations: the simple picture where, if you're in a car at 60mph and someone's driving toward you at 60mph, you can say from your frame of reference that he is coming toward you at 120mph. That is, in a nutshell, classical relativity. Newton's laws of motion work equally well in any non-accelerating reference frame, and so are invariant under a Galilean transformation. That is, you can add a certain velocity to all object in a kinematics problem or move it fifteen miles to the left, and the math will work out the same for you.
It was found that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation. It also predicted electromagnetic waves that travelled at speed c, and since this number was close to the speed at which light had been measured, this was seen as likely confirmation that light was an electromagnetic wave. It was at this point that the “ether theory” made a comeback. According to this theory, the ether would be the “rest frame” from which the speed of light is measured at c. Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of this ether by calculating the difference in the speed of light in different directions, and they failed.
If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.
If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).
Recent Posts