MIc-Gale, E-W signal delay,GPS timing

Michelson-Gale 1925

The Mic-GaleX used a large scale version of the Sagnac apparatus to attempt detection of the Earth’s rotational speed , which would decrease with latitude(below, left)   

Counter-rotating half beams were sent around a 1.2 mile perimeter in an Illinois field(above, right) .  There should be a phase difference arising from the difference in rotation speed between the north and south leg, where v1 > v2.  
The result indicated a difference corresponding to a 24 hour eastward rotation, which Mic-Gale interpreted as the Earth’s rotation, ignoring the possible rotation of aether rotating westward around an Earth at rest.

Result:     SoL =  c + v(24 hr rotation) =  c + r(omega)

The Sagnac result eliminated an Earth rotation, so this experiment supported the aether wind’s rotation that the Foucault Pendulum also detected.
Conclusion: The Earth has a free-moving autonomous aetherosphere that rotates westward at every latitude in 24 hours.

E-W radio signal delay

 
Radio signals sent west from New York to San Francisco arrive sooner than signals in the opposite direction, because the aether wind boosts westbound signals and delays eastbound ones(above).   The conclusion is reinforced by sending signals back and forth between NY and SF via the North Pole…. There’s no difference in transit time, because the signals move at right angles to the aether flow.

GPS timing error
GPS signals having a component in the E-W direction are affected by the aether wind now being studied.
The error compensation in the GPS calculations correlates with the 24 hr aether wind. It is called the Sagnac correction, which is technically a misnomer.  The SagnacX change in SoL was generated by mass motion dragging the aether around it.  The aether wind affecting the GPS signaling is a natural free-flowing aether current, like the air current known as the jet stream.

In the diagram above, the Mic-GaleX is shown on the surface, while the GPS satellite communication signals pass through the space above the ground. The same result for aether flow is found. (The Earth’s spin East should be replaced by aether wind West in the diagram.)
Here the aether is self-propelled, independently circulating around the Earth without any mass motion drag. 

Conclusion:  there are four tests (at least) which show the Earth is surrounded by a non-entrained independent aether wind, blowing everywhere westward in 24 hours .

Michelson-Morley - MMX

M&MX - 1886

Both a daily and annual periodic change in aether direction is forecast, based on the HC model.  The  annual change is due to the orbital speed of the Earth and is 30 times greater than the equatorial spin.  

 
The aberration boat model can be conceptually transferred to comparing the motion of a photon up/down an aether stream with motion cross-stream. In the diagram above a beam split into 2 half beams at a right angle and then compared for a phase difference when combined on the interferometer screen.  See below for a typical fringe pattern.

 The result was equivalent to a speed of ~ 5 kms, about 15% of the expected orbital speed of 30 km/s.
The disappointment was reflected in the summarizing term – a ‘null’ result. 

Box plots from the Michelson–Morley experiment

The experimental error analysis of 5 runs shows that the M&MX SoL average was always greater than c, and only one set of error ranges overlapped the value of c.

Although this result is consistent with an Earth and an aether approximately at rest, this option was not listed among the four options for interpretation given in Michelson’s conclusion.

The search for the aether effectively ended with Einstein’s paper on SR in 1905. Albert E said no aether was needed, while Albert M ignored the Earth and aether at rest!

Note: this experiment is small-scale and low precision; the use of transverse flow means the accuracy is of
      second order  ~ (v/ c)²  

Conclusion: …. the Earth is at rest and the surface aether speed is zero.  

Sagnac test - the key exp.

Sagnac  1913

In the SagnacX an interferometer that detects the overlapping pattern of 2 counter-rotating light beams resulted in a measured Speed of Light (SoL) that was the usual light speed c plus or minus the rim speed of the spinning platform, v. 
 
The light beam was split into CW and CCW paths that combined again at the interferometer detector for fringe measurement; the entire apparatus was mounted on a turntable.
Sagnac found that the SoL was c when the speed of the rotor in the lab frame was zero.

But when the rotor’s edge speed was v, the SoL was c +/- v.
 

When the platform is at rest - left diagram - the CW w1 and CCW w2 beam travel the same distance in the same time. But when the platform spins CW - right diagram - the co-rotating w1 beam travels a greater distance than the counter-rotating w2 beam, in the same time.  If the photons were replaced with human runners, the result would be the same - the CCW runner would win the race.

In SR the SoL for either beam is said  to be c in either the lab or rotor frame, whether the rotor spins or not.  
In the rotor frame , the light beam should  see no rotation, because of co-rotation of the whole optical bench… source, mirrors and film are on the turntable. The measurements are being made in the rest frame of the apparatus which is only rotating in the lab frame. Relativity says the SoL should be c, ......

but Sagnac measures     SoL = c +/-  v…..

 The SoL  is anisotropic -  it is not c in the rotating frame!
                                         

The Sagnac model was like coffee stirred by a spoon in the center... the motion spreads out inside the cup.
He considered that the turntable rotation dragged or entrained the aether in the space around it, at the same speed (full dragging) as the rotor, v.  The SoL change was due to the motion of the aether in the path of the light beam, either boosting it (+ v) for counter-rotation or reducing it (- v) for co-rotation.

He then concluded that the SoL was independent of the source speed, and that an entrained aether was detected, explaining the unexpected results.... unexpected, that is, to relativists.

Incredible as it may sound, although the SagX had found that counter-rotating light beams travel at c +/- v, relativists actually delude themselves that the Sagnac change in SoL is consistent with SR! Their idol - Einstein himself - chose to ignore the results that contradicted his 1905 paper – even 40 years later he had no adequate response. Einstein was quite aware of Sagnac’s work, but chose to ignore the refutation and hope the Sagnac result would be forgotten. But for its use in optical navigation and GPS, it would be.
                                                       
Summary - Sagnac analysis of light speed:
Note: SagnacX  is  first order  in  v/c.

The Sagnac result in transparent dielectric having index of refraction n is
                                            
SoL = c/n  +/-   v/n²
   
We simplify the analysis by considering only the fast co-rotating beam, the plus sign, and suppress the factors involving n. (The full expression can be restored at the end.)
So SoL is reduced to Sol = c + v.

                          RESULTS
Frame:             LAB     ROTOR
SoL =                c + v       c + v   (for the co-rotating beam)

Note: the lab frame measurement of c + v was not recorded by Sagnac
but reported by Dufour & Prunier in 1938.

Conclusion: light speed is independent of both source and detector speed and
the aether was being dragged along at the speed of the rotor.

Foucault Pendulum aetherosphere

Foucault Pendulum 1851

The plane of oscillation of a pendulum, like a gyroscope, tends to stay constant regardless of the motion of the pivot. A pendulum free to swing in two dimensions from a long cord ( as in the dome of the Pantheon in Paris, above…67 meters (220 ft) … will  precess or rotate 360° clockwise. The period T depends on latitude: 24 hrs at the poles and no rotation at the equator.

This phenomenon is claimed – illogically, to demonstrate the Earth’s rotation.  For example, how does the Earth’s rotation affect the FP plane, when the FP is only attached to the Earth by a string?  In other words, how does the FP bob know the Earth is there, rotating beneath it, without any material cause to explain the effect? 

      

The results of the Michelson-Gale exp. can be read as supporting an aether wrapped around the Earth like the atmosphere – the aetherosphere – if the aether is rotating westward at every latitude every 24 hours.  The aether’s speed can be modeled as dependent of the distance r from the surface to the polar axis ( see above)

                                                                      V(r) = kr/T

Consider applying this aether speed to the extreme ends of the FP swing:
At the equator the FP plane will not rotate if placed N-S….. both ends have the same speed.

At the poles  the ends will have opposite sense of rotation and will display the actual 24 aether period.

At mid-latitudes the south endpoint will have slightly more speed than the north endpoint , so the FP will feel a CW torque, as observed to occur.

A prediction:

If the FP swings E-W on the equator( blue , above)  the westward aether flow will boost the speed by v = kr/T and slow the eastward swing by –v .  Electronic timing of the swings should detect this effect of the aether’s circulation.

The mainstream physics model of a rotating Earth would not have this effect.

The FP rotation is not rationally explained by a rotating Earth, but by a rotating aether around a static earth. 

 Conclusion:  The Foucault Pendulum cannot show the Earth’s rotation without a physical cause/medium connecting the ground to the pendulum.
The rotating aetherosphere found by Michelson-Gale provides a logical cause, and matches all the details observed.

Galaev altitude test

Galaev   2002

Key aether tests of velocity and viscosity using millimeter radio waves were performed by the gas phase method.  These tests demonstrate aether exists, is dynamic, has viscosity, a cosmic source, and depends on latitude and altitude.  His tests show no evidence of Earth’s orbital motion. 

Virtually all these results conflict with Special Relativity and General Relativity theory.  No MS response to this recent disproof has been published yet.

Ref:  http://narod.yandex.ru/100.xhtml?www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip  P.17

The determination of variation of aether velocity and viscosity with height used the setup above.  Radio waves were sent from B to A directly and also reflected off the ground at C, D and E.  Direct and reflected patterns were compared with a radio interferometer. .

With this data and that of Dayton Miller with light waves above , he found that the aether speed was approximately zero on the surface and increased with the square root of the height above the ground (see below),

Vaether  = k h^1/2

Galaev  reports a sidereal  variation of the aether that several other experiments have also found, including the CMB dipole statistic.  

Conclusion:   This recent test is the first measurement of aethereal viscosity, which must exist to slow down entrained aether motion.

The dependence of aether speed on height supports the Michelson-Gale result, but raises new questions about the aethereal properties.

Fizeau test of drag

Fresnel 1818-30,  Fizeau 1851
Fresnel  proposed that matter moving at v would drag aether along but reduced by the drag factor
(1-1/n²) .   The Speed of Light (SoL) for this case is 

Fresnel’s Law:                         SoL =  c/n  + v(1-1/n²).

Fizeau tested and confirmed the Fresnel conjecture by splitting a beam and sending the half beams through water moving in opposite directions with speeds v and –v (above). The half beams were recombined and compared in an interferometer. Fresnel’s law showed aether is dragged with water/ matter at a greatly reduced speed .

Note that if a vacuum is used , where n ==  1.0000, no dragging will occur; SoL will be c.  It is hopeless to test for c anisotropy with a vacuum, as there is no mass for the aether to interact with. Yet such vacuum exps. are cited by MS scientists as proof of SR’s second axiom….
And the non-existence of aether.

Also, note that the aether motion is measured within the dragging medium, not outside it, as in the Sagnac test, which shows no reduction in v.
Another important note – for future reference in the Sagnac test -  is the unstated reference frame for Fizeau’s  experiment …… the lab frame!

Conclusion:   SoL is composed of 2 terms, one which depends only on the refractive index n, and the other is dependent  on both n and v.

Aberration - aether motion

Stellar  Aberration    Bradley  1727   

Aberration isn’t  parallax; it’s true of all stars  and dependent on latitude.

The MS version uses  the HC model above (top) to explain the annual variation in aberration.

It follows Bradley’s formula  for the aberration angle alpha – above (bottom).

Alpha   ~=   v/c * sin(lat)    

Here lat is the latitude angle and v is the speed of the Earth with respect to the Sun.. 30 km/s.  

The expected view  angle in (a) (computed assuming the Earth rotates)  is corrected by tilting the telescope by alpha.  MS attributes this to the motion of the earth eastward (v in (b)) while the light traverses the telescope at speed c.

There is an obvious –and ignored – conflict here with relativity, for which motion is independent of reference frame, and the required use of the HC system to measure v.  

In any other reference system the Bradley formula is invalid, so the HC system MUST be used, an absolute condition contrary to SR.  

There’s the logical issue, too, of how the starlight knows to use the Sun at rest, out of all the possible reference systems for aberration…. So anyone who accepts the Bradley derivation must rationally reject  relativity.

The Airy test provided physical evidence that refuted Bradley’s theory of aberration due to Earth’s motion.

Go to :
http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Airy%27s%20%27failure%27

Airy's 'failure'

Airy’s test   1871

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added.  This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

Bradley analysis – dashed lines above  :  The middle telescope is tilted to see the aberrated starlight.  When light moves through the telescope from A to D the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D .  This determines the aberration angle of tilt ,  arc tan( BD/AD).

Airy analysis – solid lines above:   With water added (left telescope), the light travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c. 

So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ).   Nice theory, but fails to predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE in the tilting required!  

The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the ‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of air.

Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model,  where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.  

GC ALFA analysis :  There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is motionless.  The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B, but there’s no sideways motion.  So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!

Conclusion:  The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope.   

..... What causes this bending of the stellar light path? 

See  http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Aether%20motion%20test

Parallax examined

 Geometrical Parallax  1838    a logical fallacy  …..

The definition of parallax is : the position shift of 2 objects relative to a third object, assumed fixed. 

The MS version of an HC system is shown at top, where E is the Earth, N a near star and F a far star.  The Sun and stars are considered fixed and the reference is the S-N-F line of sight.

The exact same geometry and angle of parallax is found in the GC model at bottom, using the same S-N-F reference line.    

So the HC and GC systems predict the same results….

How then is this equivalence twisted to require the HC view?

The parallax definition needs to have one object fixed … the HC version fixes the Sun and the 2 stars, and then claims this proves the Earth moves….

The Earth is the only object that CAN MOVE with this HC assumption!   If the Earth didn’t move in this version, then NOTHING would move in the heavens …. 

This is a classic fallacy of circular reasoning , a mainstream favorite.

Another MS version uses Ptolemy’s model for GC, which was reject by Tycho Brahe four centuries ago.   Using the Ptolemaic instead of the neo-Tychonian model is a strawman or red herring fallacy, attributing to modern geocentric believers what was refuted long ago.

The neoTychonian model has the stars orbiting the Sun in elliptic paths, which explains the parallax as due to the varying speeds of the stars as seen from cosmic distances.

Conclusion: The argument against GC using parallax is false logic – the fallacy of circular reasoning.

The neo-Tychonian model – having elliptic solar and stellar orbits around Earth – accounts for observed parallax between near and remote stars.