On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

AAF
AAF

August 26th, 2017, 3:01 am #1


"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Luminiferous aether" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":


https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)


Yep .  .  .

Back to Einstein!





And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,  
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently,  his case has, at last & finally, run out of gas, completely:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21


Reply
Share

Joined: December 25th, 2016, 4:32 pm

August 26th, 2017, 7:41 am #2

Rule of Forums: The last reply is the correct answer.
Reply
Like
Share

Bill Geist
Bill Geist

August 27th, 2017, 11:18 pm #3










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























Reg Cahill - Review of Experiments Contradicting Special Relativity
Natural Philosophy Alliance
(Cahill has a theory that gas filled interferometers give a partial result in the Michelson-Morley Experiment and vacuum interferometers give a null result - Cahill doesn't believe in the existence of the aether, however)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T07j1PVe16s
Reply
Share

Bill Geist
Bill Geist

August 27th, 2017, 11:19 pm #4










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm
Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

August 28th, 2017, 3:00 am #5










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21






































"Rule of Forums: The last reply is the correct answer."






Thank you very much, Johannes Harder Andersen & Bill Geist,
for your comments.




It's true that the one, who has the last word,
more often than not, wins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Last_Word



With regard to Cahill's theory, it seems, very likely, that
a gas filled interferometer would give a slightly different
result, in the Michelson-Morley Experiment, from the result
given by a vacuum interferometer.


Although any difference between the two results, in this case,
can be explained away in many ways, such as air currents,
random motions of gas molecules, differences in temperature,
and so on.












Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

August 30th, 2017, 3:00 am #6










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21



































What is wrong with this statement, by Albert Einstein:

"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt
to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium"
lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in
electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to
a concept of absolute rest"
?




Well . . .





Obviously, he misidentifies the true culprit,
behind it.


It is not the notion of "Light-medium", or the assumption of ether,
or the concept of absolute rest, which failed, in the wake
of those anomalies.


For it is quite clear that neither the "Light-medium", nor the ether,
nor the absolute rest, can, by any stretch of the imagination, predict or offer,
even slightly, the possibility of measuring the orbital speed of the earth
around the gravitational center of the solar system.


And therefore, blaming the aforementioned notions, for the failure of that prediction,
is nothing short of misidentifying the real culprit and committing the notorious error
known as 'mistaken identity'.











Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

September 3rd, 2017, 3:00 am #7










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































So, Einstein's statement that: "Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful
attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium"
lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics,
no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest"

is no more than another example of the infamous case
called 'mistaken identity'.


Now, it goes without saying, that the process of identifying the true causes,
behind any problem, is a necessary and very important condition for finding
or devising the right solution for it.


And consequently, whenever that important process goes wrong, no correct solution,
for the problem, in question, can follow or come, somehow, after it.


For it's self-evident that the wrong diagnosis of any disease, inevitably, leads
to the wrong medication, and ultimately, to no cure,
in the end, at all.


And that is, precisely, what happened with Albert Einstein, in his failed attempt
at curing that major illness of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory.












Reply
Share

Joined: December 25th, 2016, 4:32 pm

September 3rd, 2017, 5:39 am #8










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























Einstein was right until he starts looking out of the window:

Here is my example. Einstein is driving a car on the road, a very common experience, right. Everybody have done this.

Einstein then says: "no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest", that is, inside my car is as good as anything else. He press the accelerator and feels the acceleration on his body. Then he looks in the rear view mirror rear and sees that the road is accelerating away behind him. But the trees are no bending opposite, the trees on the road doesn't feel any bending force, only the the mathematical second derivative applies. The road and the car are not equivalent relative systems.

So is the road then in absolute rest? The road is more at rest than the car, but the road might still be moving in the universe. The test for this is again to look out of the window, i.e. a telecoppe as see what forces are inflicted. Not an easy job to do. But if we wrongly assert that something is moving, then we get spurious energy from that.
Reply
Like
Share

AAF
AAF

September 5th, 2017, 3:00 am #9










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





































"Einstein was right until he starts looking out of the window: Here is my example. Einstein is driving a car on the road, a very common experience, right. Everybody have done this. Einstein then says: "no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest", that is, inside my car is as good as anything else. He press the accelerator and feels the acceleration on his body. Then he looks in the rear view mirror rear and sees that the road is accelerating away behind him. But the trees are no bending opposite, the trees on the road doesn't feel any bending force, only the the mathematical second derivative applies. The road and the car are not equivalent relative systems. So is the road then in absolute rest? The road is more at rest than the car, but the road might still be moving in the universe. The test for this is again to look out of the window, i.e. a telescope as see what forces are inflicted. Not an easy job to do. But if we wrongly assert that something is moving, then we get spurious energy from that."







Thank you, Johannes Harder Andersen,
very much, for your comment.



It's, certainly, next to impossible to determine the linear & uniform motion
of one's frame of reference, from inside, and without
any help from external objects.


However, due to the fact that the speed of light, in Maxwell's electromagnetic theory,
is assumed to be independent of the motion of the light source, Michelson & Morley
thought it might be possible, for their superbly sensitive interferometer to measure
the fringe shift of the second-order effect that must exist, if Earth is, truly,
moving around the Sun.


But, of course, they did not find any measurable amount of fringe shift; and hence Einstein,
in his 1920 revised paper, labeled their experiment as 'the unsuccessful attempt
to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium"'
.


And that is, clearly, a wrong diagnosis, on the part of Albert Einstein; because Michelson
& Morley were trying to measure the speed of the earth relative to the Sun, not relative
to the "Light-medium"; i.e., they were looking for the relative speed of the earth, within
the solar system, only, & not for its absolute speed relative to the "Light-medium"
of the Maxwellian theory.


In other words, the relative speeds are, here,
the big problem.


And that is because if the speed of light is, indeed, independent of the motion of the light
source, THEN it must be possible to use the speed of light relative to the observer,
as defined within the framework of Maxwell's theory, to calculate & to measure the speed
of the earth relative to the Sun.



















Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

September 9th, 2017, 3:00 am #10










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21



































To signal out the "Light-medium", or the ether, or the state of absolute rest,
as the cause behind the "unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of
the earth"
, is to make a costly and grave error,
right from the start.


And certainly, no correct solution, for that problem, can come out of that wrong
diagnosis, as expounded above by Albert Einstein.


Absolutely, no correct solution to that thorny problem can follow that misstep;
none, absolutely, none whatsoever.


How can anyone blame the state of absolute rest for the failure to substantiate
or verify the prediction of Maxwell's theory of light concerning
the space motion of the earth?


Does the state of absolute rest play any part in that failed prediction or in
the calculations that lead to it?


No; absolutely not.


The state of absolute rest plays no role, at all, in that particular prediction,
or in the calculations, which lead to it.


Does the aether play any part in that failed prediction or in the calculations
that lead to it?


No; absolutely not.


The aether plays not role, whatsoever, in that particular prediction, or in the
calculations, which lead to it.




















Reply
Share