4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag
Ed 01.12.31 ------------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
As we know the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that there is no
ethereal
wind on the ground. It is thought at present that the existence of the
stellar aberration necessitates existence of ethereal wind on the
ground
if the ether is to exist. Comparison of these two experiments results
in
believing that the ether does not exist. We prove that if the ether
exists
the stellar aberration can occur with the ether drag and then does not
necessitate existence of the ethereal wind.

A new model in the form of undiscovered tiny particles is presented for
the
ether. With accepting this model and by using the results of the
Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments a model consisting of
an
ethereal stack stuck with the earth in its motion in the space is
presented
such that the earth can rotate axially inside this stack freely.
We shall also see why atomic clocks are slow when are in (fast) motion.

I. Introduction
---------------
As we know for familiarizing the mind of a student with the relativity,
usually initially some experiments are cited that it is claimed that
the classical physics is not able to justify them, thereafter on the
basis of these failures of the classical physics the theory of
relativity is formulated and explained. The most important experiments
of this kind cited in the beginning of almost every elementary text
about the relativity are failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment
and attraction of the stars light by the sun when passing beside it.

Since the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment was the first
experiment that seemed to be a confirmation for the relativity,
especially historically, it is still cited as the first evidence
to confirm the relativity in the elementary textbooks. The object of
this article is to prove that the failure of the Michelson-Morley
experiment cannot be a confirmation for the relativity.

In the present elementary books of the relativity it is explained
that before appearance of the relativity the hypothesis of the
existence of ether as a fine substance pervading the space and serving
as the medium for the transmission of electromagnetic waves had been
postulated as a certain principle for many years; also it was supposed
that the earth in its revolution around the sun bored through the fixed
ether and then there must be an ethereal wind on the surface of the
earth. Necessarily, speed of such a wind differed in different
directions, then on the basis of this fact, the Michelson-Morley
experiment was designed for detecting this ethereal wind. But this
experiment did not detect such a wind expected due to the revolution
of the earth around the sun.

To justify this failure according to the hypothesis of the existence
of ether, it was claimed that in fact the earth dragged the ether
along with itself and then there was no ethereal wind to be detected
by the Michelson-Morley experiment. In rejecting the ether drag
opinion,
most of the authors of the modern physics and relativity books
introduce the stellar aberration as a chief reason, while they are
in a glaring error demonstration of which is the object of this
article.
We only want to prove that the existence of the stellar aberration
cannot really reject the opinion of the ether drag by the earth, cause
of which can be thought (by the student) eg as the gravitational
attraction of the earth on the much tiny particles making the ether.

In the 13th article of the book, in fact I have investigated this
probability that the space is full of some undiscovered much tiny
electrostatic and magnetostatic dipoles. There, it has been explained
that how an electromagnetic wave can propagate through these tiny
particles when orientation of electrostatic dioles causes orientation
of magnetostatic dipoles which in turn will cause orientation of some
further electrostatic dipoles and so on. This is not the subject
of this article, but is indicative of this fact that if we suppose that
the spase is full of some much tiny particles acting as a vehicle
for propagating the electromagnetic wave through the space, this
supposition will be supported by some strong reasoning presented
elsewhere. Let's call these particles as "ether", but keeping in
mind its new form.

II. How the stellar aberration can be deduced
---------------------------------------------
The reasoning leading to the rejection of the existence of ether is
as in the following: We suppose that the ether exists. The Michelson-
Morley experiment shows nonexistence of the expected ethereal wind
on the ground, and existence of the stellar aberration (which is shown
by the angle alpha obtained from the relation tanalpha=v/c in which
v is the orbital speed of the earth surface) necessitates existence
of the expected ethereal wind on the ground. Since these two
experiments
contradict each other, we conclude that the initial supposition,
ie the supposition of the existence of ether, has been wrong.

We show that this reasoning is not valid (it is obvious of course that
the invalidity of this reasoning does not necessarily prove the
existence of ether) because the existence of the stellar aberration
does not necessitate existence of the ethereal wind expected on the
ground, and even if the ether is dragged along with the earth in its
revolution around the sun, we shall still have the same stellar
aberration as mentioned above: If we suppose that the ether around
the earth is being dragged along with the earth in its revolution
around the sun in such a form that the dragged ether consists of some
layers such that the speeds of them decrease as their distances from
the earth increase (and so for instance the lowest layer has the same
speed of the earth surface and the highest layer has the same speed
of the fixed ether ie zero speed), then we shall prove that always
we shall obtain the relation tanalpha=v/c for the stellar aberration
angle alpha in which v is the orbital speed of the earth surface and
c is the speed of light in the fixed ether. We consider Fig. 1 without
losing the generality of the discussion. Sufficient explanations
have been given under the figure.

, ,
| | _.-/|
|c |alpha _,-,-'/ |
| | c0_-'c1/c2/ c|
n3 V | V -' V-' V V
S2--------------------- ===============
n2 v2 -(v-v1) -(v1-v2) -v2
=====
S1---------------------
n1 v1
===========
S----------------------
v
=================


Fig. 1. S is the earth surface. n1 is the lower layer of the
dragged
ether. n2 is the upper layer of the ether. n3 is the fixed ether.
v is the velocity of the earth surface relative to the fixed
ether. v1 is the velocity of the lower layer of the dragged
ether relative to the fixed ether. v2 is the velocity of the
upper layer of the dragged ether relative to the fixed ether.
c is the velocity of light in the fixed ether.

When the light hits the surface S2 normally, we can say that from the
viewpoint of the upper layer of the dragged ether, firstly, the light
has the velocity c relative to the fixed ether, and secondly, the fixed
ether has the velocity -v2 relative to the upper layer of the dragged
ether. Therefore, the light has the velocity c2 relative to the upper
layer of the dragged ether. In this same manner since light has the
velocity c2 relative to the upper layer of the dragged ether and the
upper layer of the dragged ether has the velocity -(v1-v2) relative to
the lower layer of the dragged ether, light has the velocity c1
relative to the lower layer of the dragged ether; and also since light
has the velocity c1 relative to the lower layer of the dragged ether
and the lower layer of the dragged ether has the velocity -(v-v1)
relative to the earth surface, light has the velocity c0 relative
to the earth surface.

We can write these results totally in the vector diagram shown in Fig.
1
in which alpha is the same stellar aberration angle. It is seen easily
from the diagram that we have
tanalpha=(v-v1+v1-v2+v2)/c=v/c.
Then, if, on supposition, the ether adjacent to the erth surface is
being dragged completely along with the earth (ie for instance in the
above discussion we have v1=v), we shall have the same result
tanalpha=v/c in that manner. Therefore, the stellar aberration is not
at all in contradiction with the ether drag, or in other words the
stellar aberration does not necessitate boring through the ether by
the earth in its orbital revolution causing any ethereal wind.

In the above reasoning we used a good approximation: If in the
following figure, for example, c1 is the velocity vector of light in
the layer 1 and v is the motion vector of the layer 2 relative to 1,
we supposed that the velocity vector of light in the layer 2 is the
same c1-v, while, considering the optics of the mediums 1 and 2,
this is not exactly the case, but when the ratio |v/c1| is very
small this approximation is very good.

,/
c1-v ./'/
./' / c1 1
..............V----V...............
,/ -v 2
c1-v ./'
./' ----
V' v

A simple analogue of the reasoning presented in this section is when
a car is moving in a rain falling vertically. The raindrops hit on
the floor of the car within an acute angle relative to the motion
direction of the car, and if we let the raindrops come into the car
via a hole in the car's roof, they'll reach the floor of the car
within the same acute angle although the air inside the car is being
dragged.

III. An ethereal model
----------------------
Now let's accept the existence of ether in its new concept.
The Michelson-Morley experiment indicates that this ether is being
dragged with the earth in its revolution around the sun, and this is
itself a rational matter, because the tiny particles (making our
ether) have some mass inevitably which the massive mass of the earth
attracts them strongly, and consequently a fixed pile of them around
the earth are being dragged along with the earth in its rotation
around the sun.

On the other hand the Michelson-Gale experiment indicates that in each
point on the earth surface there exists an ethereal wind arising from
axial rotation of the earth inside a fixed ether surrounding the earth
(because this experiment reveals the fringe displacement expected
for the earth rotation around itself, or in other words the angular
velocity of the axial rotation of the earth can be obtained from this
experiment). This surrounding fixed ether can be the same fixed
ethereal pile mentioned before in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
We can liken the general situation to a cylindrical strong magnet
which,
eg, a thin glass tube has covered it and this tube (with the magnet
inside it) is being transmitted much fast through some vast and crowded

stack of much tiny shavings of iron. Certainly some of the shavings
continue to be attached to the outer surface of the tube for always
and are ever along with it in each desired form of its motion. Now
suppose that meanwhile the cylindrical magnet rotates about its axis
inside the tube without any rotation of the tube. Certainly no change
will take place in the position of the shavings attached to the tube.
That the pile of ether around the earth doesn't accompany the earth in
its
axial rotation is quite understandable considering that almost there
is not at all any friction between this pile and the earth surface.
The situation is almost similar to the atmospheres around the earth and
sun that since cannot accompany them completely in their axial
rotations,
cause some winds on their surfaces.

The ethereal wind arising from the axial rotation of the earth can be
used for justifying the observed small fringe displacement in the
Michelson-Morley experiment (notice that there are some reports about
some measurable fringe displacements in this experiment, but these
displacements are always much smaller than what is anticipated for
the speed of the revolution of the earth around the sun which is too
much more than the linear speed of its rotation about itself).

Considering the above model we may predict that the period of an atomic
(or molecular) oscillator will increase if it is set in a fast motion,
because when it is in a fast motion on the ground it will endure an
ethereal wind which anyway has its effect on this atomic oscillator
causing its period to lengthen. The situation is quite like a wave
traveling between two specified points in a motionless medium: when the
medium is set in a (fast) motion from one point toward the other one
the time during which the wave reaches the same point it had left is
longer than when the medium is motionless. That's why atomic clocks
are slow when are in (fast) motion.

IV. Effect of the presence of water
-----------------------------------
Now pay attention to Fig. 2.

wrote in message
oups.com...

4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag
Ed 01.12.31 ------------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
As we know the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that there is no
ethereal wind on the ground.

Wrong - have you never heard of Heaviside, Fitzgerald and Lorentz?!


It is thought at present that the existence of the
stellar aberration necessitates existence of ethereal wind
on the ground if the ether is to exist.

That thought has been shown to be unsubstantiated a long time ago, AFAIK.

SNIP

Cheers,
Harald

wrote:

4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag
[snip 340 lines of crap]

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
|
| 4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag
| [snip 340 lines of crap]

[snip crap]
Phuckwit.

Androcles.

wrote in message
oups.com...

4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag
Ed 01.12.31 ------------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
As we know the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that there is no
ethereal
wind on the ground. It is thought at present that the existence of the
stellar aberration necessitates existence of ethereal wind on the
ground
if the ether is to exist. Comparison of these two experiments results
in
believing that the ether does not exist. We prove that if the ether
exists
the stellar aberration can occur with the ether drag and then does not
necessitate existence of the ethereal wind.

A new model in the form of undiscovered tiny particles is presented for
the
ether. With accepting this model and by using the results of the
Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments a model consisting of
an
ethereal stack stuck with the earth in its motion in the space is
presented
such that the earth can rotate axially inside this stack freely.
We shall also see why atomic clocks are slow when are in (fast) motion.

I. Introduction
---------------
As we know for familiarizing the mind of a student with the relativity,
usually initially some experiments are cited that it is claimed that
the classical physics is not able to justify them, thereafter on the
basis of these failures of the classical physics the theory of
relativity is formulated and explained. The most important experiments
of this kind cited in the beginning of almost every elementary text
about the relativity are failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment
and attraction of the stars light by the sun when passing beside it.

Since the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment was the first
experiment that seemed to be a confirmation for the relativity,
especially historically, it is still cited as the first evidence
to confirm the relativity in the elementary textbooks. The object of
this article is to prove that the failure of the Michelson-Morley
experiment cannot be a confirmation for the relativity.

In the present elementary books of the relativity it is explained
that before appearance of the relativity the hypothesis of the
existence of ether as a fine substance pervading the space and serving
as the medium for the transmission of electromagnetic waves had been
postulated as a certain principle for many years; also it was supposed
that the earth in its revolution around the sun bored through the fixed
ether and then there must be an ethereal wind on the surface of the
earth. Necessarily, speed of such a wind differed in different
directions, then on the basis of this fact, the Michelson-Morley
experiment was designed for detecting this ethereal wind. But this
experiment did not detect such a wind expected due to the revolution
of the earth around the sun.

To justify this failure according to the hypothesis of the existence
of ether, it was claimed that in fact the earth dragged the ether
along with itself and then there was no ethereal wind to be detected
by the Michelson-Morley experiment. In rejecting the ether drag
opinion,
most of the authors of the modern physics and relativity books
introduce the stellar aberration as a chief reason, while they are
in a glaring error demonstration of which is the object of this
article.
We only want to prove that the existence of the stellar aberration
cannot really reject the opinion of the ether drag by the earth, cause
of which can be thought (by the student) eg as the gravitational
attraction of the earth on the much tiny particles making the ether.

In the 13th article of the book, in fact I have investigated this
probability that the space is full of some undiscovered much tiny
electrostatic and magnetostatic dipoles. There, it has been explained
that how an electromagnetic wave can propagate through these tiny
particles when orientation of electrostatic dioles causes orientation
of magnetostatic dipoles which in turn will cause orientation of some
further electrostatic dipoles and so on. This is not the subject
of this article, but is indicative of this fact that if we suppose that
the spase is full of some much tiny particles acting as a vehicle
for propagating the electromagnetic wave through the space, this
supposition will be supported by some strong reasoning presented
elsewhere. Let's call these particles as "ether", but keeping in
mind its new form.

II. How the stellar aberration can be deduced
---------------------------------------------
The reasoning leading to the rejection of the existence of ether is
as in the following: We suppose that the ether exists. The Michelson-
Morley experiment shows nonexistence of the expected ethereal wind
on the ground, and existence of the stellar aberration (which is shown
by the angle alpha obtained from the relation tanalpha=v/c in which
v is the orbital speed of the earth surface) necessitates existence
of the expected ethereal wind on the ground. Since these two
experiments
contradict each other, we conclude that the initial supposition,
ie the supposition of the existence of ether, has been wrong.

You have posted the same tripe before. Since aether drag theories exist
that are experimentally equivalent to SR so no experiment can rule out
either an aether or aether drag theories so your whole basis is a straw
man - see
http://www.answers.com/topic/aether-drag-hypothesis

Rest snipped.

Bill

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
wrote:

4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

The results of all gas mode interferometer experiments
are highly questionable, seeing as though it was not until
after 2000 (Cahill) that the physics of a gas mode inteferometer
was finally specified (ie: 1) refractive index of gas, 2) the
'relativistic' terms).

No aether detected by vacuum or solid state interferometers
to a depth of 10^-14, but beyond this limit you can only
postulate. The aether *is* a postulate.





--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

mountain man wrote:
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
wrote:

4 Stellar aberration doesn't contradict ether drag

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

The results of all gas mode interferometer experiments
are highly questionable, seeing as though it was not until
after 2000 (Cahill) that the physics of a gas mode inteferometer
was finally specified (ie: 1) refractive index of gas, 2) the
'relativistic' terms).


Specified incorrectly!

No aether detected by vacuum or solid state interferometers
to a depth of 10^-14, but beyond this limit you can only
postulate. The aether *is* a postulate.


Depth of 10^-14 what?