The Michelson Gale Pearson MGX Catastrophe.

[crawler]

A A Michelson & Henry G Gale & Fred Pearson– The Effect Of The Earth's Rotation On The Velocity Of Light – 1925.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..140M http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..137M

I had a closer look at Michelson's 269 observations (called determinations in the graph)(is there a difference) of fringe-shift for his 1925 rectangular pipeline MGX.
His original 1904 prediction was .............................................. 0.118................
His 1925 prediction (Silberstein's actually) was .............................. 0.236 +/- 0.002. [double his original].
His reported result was ........................................................... 0.230 +/- 0.005.

His Figure 3 -- Distribution Of Observations -- is a graphical bar chart of the 269 determinations.
The min fringe displacement was .... -0.03 ... ave +0.23 (my calc 0.229) .... the max was +0.55. (A spread of 0.58).
The highest bars were for 0.16 (18 occurrences) .... 0.26 (17 No) .... 0.25 (16 No) .... 0.22 (15 No).

I calculated the variance to be 0.0634 ......... standard deviation +/- 0.252.
Yet Michelson reported a result of 0.230 +/- 0.005. He sayd.........
In view of the difficulty of the observations, this must be taken to mean that the observed and calculated shifts agree within the limits of observational error.

That is krapp. The actual standard deviation of +/- 0.252 is much larger than his reported error range of +/- 0.005 & his predicted error range of +/- 0.002. In fact his 0.252 of error is larger than his reported average signal of 0.230 & his predicted signal of 0.236.

Yet not a word about this obvious catastrophe (or more correctly what should have been seen as being a happy finding)(the seed for a real scientific breakthroo) that something peculiar is going on. And that-there something must i reckon be due to the aetherwind, in particular the apparent swinging east & west of the apparent wind.

I think that the +/- 0.005 is ok, & the +/- 0.002 is ok, & this hi-lites the importance of the large spread of 0.58, ie the large spread is not due to some kind of experimental error.

The graph of the large spread suggests the existence of two different spread-out populations, rather than one population concentrated around 0.236. This suggests a rogue cause, which might be related to existing postulates, or it might be something new.

Michelson's understanding of the existence of a strong background aetherwind was mainly developed after this 1925 MGX, because the aetherwind wasnt explained & reported by Miller & Morley untill say 1933.
Miller estimated the aetherwind to be 195.2 kmps to 211.5 kmps, declination -62deg15' to -78deg25', right-ascension 4hr00min to 5hr40min (depending on season).

Michelson's lack of understanding might explain his cowardly avoidance of the puzzling elephant in the room in 1925. Anyhow, instead of honestly embracing a chance to advance science, Michelson dishonestly mumbled something about ………
………the observed and calculated shifts agree within the limits of observational error …………..
& Michelson then quietly locked the door on the whole episode. Or praps he had had a good think but came up empty, & then lied.

Funding amounted to $17,500 in 1924, which is equivalent to $260,000 in 2019. In a sense it was money wasted. Michelson was hoping that the observations would be smaller, which would support the existence of a dragged or partially dragged aether, in which case the money would have been well spent. But the average fringeshift was found to be the full value, & hencely Michelson found himself back in 1887 where he (wrongly) reported a null result for his MMX (he was looking for a 30 kmps orbital aetherwind but found 7 kmps).

Re the MGX Michelson should have (correctly) reported a null result for aether drag, but, because of all of the brouhaha re the 1887 MMX, Michelson was by 1925 allergic to the word null, & associates found that Michelson was easily paralyzed by simply whispering that word within earshot.

Michelson died in 1931 (when someone yelled NULL) & Michelson didn't get a chance to revisit the 1925 findings of his MGX. Silberstein died in 1948 & could have revisited the MGX but shirked. Gale died in 1942. Fred Pearson (optician) died in 1955.

So it is up to us to solve the MGX Catastrophe. I am working on it. The answer will involve the aetherwind. Tell me if u have any ideas. I have some ideas, but i am behind the 8ball koz Michelson did not tell us the times & dates of his 269 determinations. I will return.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....61..140M
https://forgottenchicago.com/forum/read.php?1,9761
https://www.videoproject.com/The-Master-of-Light.html
https://www.the-scientist.com/books-etc ... lure-63642

[Sandokhan]

Here is the experimental data published by Michelson in 1925:

https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg

Unbelievably, the fringe shifts show no rotation of the Earth at all (0.00 fringe displacement).

This is the main reason why Michelson inserted this observation data on page 6 (in the acknowledgments section), away from the main discussion, in order to attract as little attention to it as possible.

Now, heliocentrists will immediately rely on the HAMMAR experiment (1935) to dismiss the ether theory, that is why one needs my SAGNAC EFFECT formula to debunk this erroneous argument:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2031383

What Michelson did is to SUBSTITUTE the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2117351

Correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula for ring laser gyroscopes:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2153966

[crawler]

Here is the experimental data published by Michelson in 1925:

https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg

Unbelievably, the fringe shifts show no rotation of the Earth at all (0.00 fringe displacement).

This is the main reason why Michelson inserted this observation data on page 6 (in the acknowledgments section), away from the main discussion, in order to attract as little attention to it as possible.

Now, heliocentrists will immediately rely on the HAMMAR experiment (1935) to dismiss the ether theory, that is why one needs my SAGNAC EFFECT formula to debunk this erroneous argument:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2031383

What Michelson did is to SUBSTITUTE the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2117351

Correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula for ring laser gyroscopes:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2153966

Thanx for that info, i will work my way throo it.
But re the HammarX, this was a very good X, it showed that aether (if it existed) was not dragged. Hammar deserves more credit than he got. But in no way can his HX be used to support the non-existence of aether, it can only be used to support the non-existence of aether-drag. And i think that all aetherists like myself wholeheartedly agree (as of course so do u).

[Sandokhan]

Hammar registered/recorded only the CORIOLIS EFFECT on his light interferometer.

Yet, just like Michelson, he claimed that he was measuring the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Let us quickly derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the light interferometer.

2v1l1/(c2 - v21) - 2v2l2/(c2 - v22)

l = l1 = l2

2l[(v1 - v2)]/c2

2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c2

R1 - R2 = h

2lhΩ/c2

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


What Hammar did is to encase one of the arms of the interferometer in steel and lead.

Then, instead of comparing two different sides (which enclose an area), what we have left is a comparison for a single side: the CORIOLIS FORCES will simply offset each other for that particular arm of the interferometer.

Again, no SAGNAC EFFECT was registered/recorded for the Hammar light interferometer.

it can only be used to support the non-existence of aether-drag

A very good observation. However, the relativists now will combine the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, with the experimental data of the Michelson-Gale experiment and with the present results for the Hammar experiment to claim that no ether exists.

http://www.journalrepository.org/media/ ... 9643_1.pdf

That is why one needs my global/generalized SAGNAC EFFECT formula to clearly differentiate between the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT on light beams.

In 1999 E. J. Post showed the equivalence between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment.

E. J. Post, A joint description of the Michelson Morley and Sagnac experiments.
Proceedings of the International Conference Galileo Back in Italy II, Bologna 1999,
Andromeda, Bologna 2000, p. 62

E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887: "To avoid possible confusion, it may be remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

A. Michelson and E. Morley SIMPLY MEASURED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT OF THE ETHER DRIFT. Since they did not use a phase-conjugate mirror or a fiber optic equipment, the Coriolis force effects ("attractive" and "repulsive") upon the light offset each other.

The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual surface enclosed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer). Dayton Miller also measured the Coriolis effect of the ether drift in his experiment (Mount Wilson, 1921-1924 and 1925-1926, and Cleveland, 1922-1924).

Michelson repeated his error in the Michelson-Gale experiment, where he used the WRONG formula (Michelson and Gale actually recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT and not the Sagnac effect). Hammar also committed the same error.

[crawler]

.........E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887: "To avoid possible confusion, it may be remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

A. Michelson and E. Morley SIMPLY MEASURED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT OF THE ETHER DRIFT. Since they did not use a phase-conjugate mirror or a fiber optic equipment, the Coriolis force effects ("attractive" and "repulsive") upon the light offset each other.

The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual surface enclosed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer). Dayton Miller also measured the Coriolis effect of the ether drift in his experiment (Mount Wilson, 1921-1924 and 1925-1926, and Cleveland, 1922-1924).

Michelson repeated his error in the Michelson-Gale experiment, where he used the WRONG formula (Michelson and Gale actually recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT and not the Sagnac effect). Hammar also committed the same error.

If i follow proper, u are saying that the coriolis equation is identical to the historic sagnac equation.
I find it difficult to understand the sagnac. My gut feeling is that Michelson's equation should be added to Silberstein's equation, ie 2 plus 4 makes 6. But experiments support 4, so i will go with that.
My analysis of the MGX Catastrophe probly wont suffer whether the correct number is 4 or 6 (& whether there is Coriolis), koz i will be indentifying things that exist in a different realm (involving the apparent daily swing of the aetherwind).

But, re Coriolis etc, how do u explain the linear Sagnac results of Wang et al in 2003 & 2004.
Ah i just then found https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... =72601.150
& i will have a read. I think that u say that the Sagnac effect is due primarily to the linear movement of the receiver, not angular rotation, & the primary equation has a 2 up front (just like Michelson's equation). I agree. Which brings me back to 2 plus 4 equals 6. But i guess that none of this is important here re the MGX Catastrophe. The Catastrophe involves the ignored stupendously large spread of the MGX fringeshifts, not so much the average.

[Sandokhan]

how do u explain the linear Sagnac results of Wang et al in 2003 & 2004

Professor Ruyong Wang, in two well-designed experiments showed unambiguously that an identical Sagnac effect appearing in uniform radial motion occurs in linear inertial motion.

He tested the travel-time difference between two counter-propagating light beams in uniformly moving fiber.

The travel-time difference was found to be:

Δt = 2vΔL/c^2

where ΔL is the length of the fiber segment moving with the source and detector at a v, whether the segment was moving uniformly or circularly.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

"For a circular path of radius R, the difference between the different time intervals can also be represented as Δt = 2vl/c^2, where v = ΩR is the speed of the circular motion and l = 2πR is the circumference of the circle.

The travel-time difference of two counterpropagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform.

In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c^2."

Sagnac effect without rotation or an area:

https://image.ibb.co/cPs5vd/sagnac3.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/m86n8y/sagnac4.jpg

Here is the Dufour-Prunier experiment (an interferometer with both rotational and linear elements):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1978311

u are saying that the coriolis equation is identical to the historic sagnac equation

If the interferometer has an irregularly shaped geometry and/or is located away from the center of rotation, one is going to measure first the CORIOLIS EFFECT. That is why Sagnac's formula is proportional to the AREA of the interferometer.

This was Michelson's unbelievable trick: he substituted the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the correct SAGNAC EFFECT equation.

[crawler]

I found the reason for the MGX Catastrophe (ie the stupendous spread of fringeshifts throo each day).
There is a flaw in the design of the rectangular pipeline. The mini-circuit at the western end of the rectangle should have been in the middle of the rectangle.

The mini-circuit provides a set of fringes that give a fiducial zero for the main fringes, & hencely allows a measure of the fringeshift. Putting the mini-circuit at the western end, & putting the detector at the south-western corner (or at any of the four corners), is simpler than putting the mini-circuit etc at the center. Putting it at the center would require 2 additional lengths of pipe, ie a total of 4 lengths running north-south, instead of the 3 lengths used (in addition to the 2 long east-west lengths). And 4 north-south lengths would require an extra pair of mirrors. And might also make the establishment of a fiducial zero more difficult for practical reasons not obvious to me sitting here in my study in 2019.

I have created an Excel model of the MGX pipeline layout, & i am getting results that support my theory. What Michelson did not realize is that the apparent aetherwind changes velocity, speed-wize & direction-wize. Its like this. If the aetherwind were constant then it would not matter where the fiducial mini-circuit was placed. If the speed of the aether wind was not constant but accelerated, & if the acceleration were constant, then here too it would not matter where the fiducial mini-circuit was placed. But, if the acceleration is not constant, then a non-central mini-circuit will result in a spread-out range of fringeshifts.

So, the reason for the MGX Catastrophe is the JERK of the aetherwind, together with the design flaw. U heard it here first.
There are 2 aspects to JERK. Firstly a change in the kmps of the wind. Secondly a change in direction. The MGX suffered from both. Both result in a spreading of the measured fringeshifts.

I will crunch some more numbers in Excel. And i will return to explain better.
I have more or less known this for a long time, but my new Excel model is proof.
I was not 100% sure that it was the JERK. I had a suspicion that it might be due to a non-uniform JERK, ie it might be due to JOLT (my name), but my Excel model shows that the culprit is JERK.

[D_Archer]

Aether can be likened to the charge field (a sea of physical photons).

The earth continuously recycles photons (mostly in at the poles and out above and below the equator), they go out of the earth straight up from the surface everywhere.

This means there is no drag, the Aether is continuously made.

Just wondering if this rings a bell in any of the data you guys studied.

Regards,
Daniel

[Sandokhan]

The earth continuously recycles photons (mostly in at the poles and out above and below the equator), they go out of the earth straight up from the surface everywhere.

This means there is no drag, the Aether is continuously made.


This idea certainly works on a stationary Earth.

However, both the einsteinian relativists and the EU believe that the Earth is orbiting the Sun at some 30km/s.

Then, we have a huge problem, one that has not been resolved to this day, notwithstanding the efforts of Fizeau, Fresnel, Stokes, Michelson and others.

The last stand of the relativists is MLET: modified Lorentz ether theory. That is, in order to explain both the Ruderfer experiment and the missing orbital Sagnac effect, the relativists have been abandoning Einstein's version of relativity to replace it with a stationary/TRANSLATIONAL ETHER envelope (the ether travels with the Earth around the Sun).

Ruderfer experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1846721

Missing orbital Sagnac effect for GPS satellites:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1983786 (four consecutive messages)

Here is an IOP, mainstream article dealing with the local-aether model:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104 ... tw/f1b.pdf

Now, the proponents of MLET have to deal with MAGNETRICITY: the fact that the magnetic field is comprised of TWO streams of particles, both N - S and S - N.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... #msg759332

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2000525

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2009680


Now, certainly the mini-circuit in the MGX could have been placed in the center.

Dayton Miller did record the PERIODICITY of the ether drift in his experiments:

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

http://www.orgonelab.org/graphics/MILLE ... aGraph.jpg

So, now one has to derive the actual formula for the MGX, which is a SAGNAC interferometer.

The crucial point is this: a Sagnac interferometer can detect/record/register BOTH the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT (which is much larger than the Coriolis effect on the light beams).

That is, there are TWO formulas which have to be derived.

An orbiting Earth needs BOTH the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT to be recorded during the experiment, in order to claim rotation.

A stationary Earth needs only the CORIOLIS EFFECT to be registered (the ether drift effect on the light beams).

Michelson detected only the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

[D_Archer]

the magnetic field is comprised of TWO streams of particles, both N - S and S - N.

Well photons have spin, they all spin the same direction, but some are upside down to others (in the field) and can be called anti-photons, anti photons go in at the north-pole (mostly), and photons go in at the south-pole (mostly), so the streams out of the Earth are both photons and anti-photons. The curve or spin of the photons is the magnetic field, that would explain the 2 streams.

The crucial point is this: a Sagnac interferometer can detect/record/register BOTH the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT (which is much larger than the Coriolis effect on the light beams).

That is, there are TWO formulas which have to be derived.

An orbiting Earth needs BOTH the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT to be recorded during the experiment, in order to claim rotation.

A stationary Earth needs only the CORIOLIS EFFECT to be registered (the ether drift effect on the light beams).

Michelson detected only the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

This might help>
Miles Mathis on Coriolis effect> The Coriolis effect deconstructed>http://milesmathis.com/corio.html

Because the charge field is different north and south, we would expect vortices to be different north and south. And this would apply to vortices of every size, large and small. Since the curves are not caused by position or by Coriolis pseudo-forces, there is no need to explain the vortices by lots of difficult math. Magnetism is caused by a real spin of a photon, so we can explain angular momenta all the way down to the size of a photon. Small vortices give us no theoretical problem.

Miles Mathis on Sagnac effect > The Aberration of Starlight> http://milesmathis.com/aberr.pdf

Since the charge field is rotating one direction and not the other, one path of light will be going with
that field and one will be going against it. Since the charge field is real, it will cause real photon
collisions. The light going against the charge field will have to take a longer path. And so we have the
Sagnac effect.

once we give the ether a real presence, as with my charge field made up of real photons, the disproof of the Sagnac Effect becomes proof.

---

Regards.
Daniel

[Sandokhan]

Well photons have spin, they all spin the same direction, but some are upside down to others (in the field) and can be called anti-photons, anti photons go in at the north-pole (mostly), and photons go in at the south-pole (mostly), so the streams out of the Earth are both photons and anti-photons.

No.

The flux/stream of particles consists of SUBQUARKS: laevorotatory and dextrorotatory, the actual magnetic monopoles. Bosons travel longitudinally through these subquarks.

In the ether quantum theory, photons = bosons = neutrinos.

Journey inside a boson (the true structure of a boson/photon):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1774536

An antiboson is a boson which produces more aether (darkness/stillness) than ether (light/sound).

One stream comprises the MAGNETIC FIELD, the other stream is the GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, both stream travel in double torsion fashion to become the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

This might help>
Miles Mathis on Coriolis effect

"I will then show that it is once again the charge field causing the phenomena, not the Coriolis Effect."

Miles Mathis

Charge field = ether drift, so there must be a Coriolis effect of rotation.

It is very real.

Here is someone who has studied this problem even deeper than Mathis.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/co ... lforce.pdf (a superb analysis)

Moreover, we have Silberstein's very detailed derivation of the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

dt = 4AΩ/c^2

Hydrodynamic gravity equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2033009 (ten consecutive messages)

A Sagnac interferometer can register both the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect upon the light beams.

The Coriolis effect is a PHYSICAL EFFECT on the light beams.

The Sagnac effect is an ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT on the velocity of the light beams.

A huge difference.

[D_Archer]

Well photons have spin, they all spin the same direction, but some are upside down to others (in the field) and can be called anti-photons, anti photons go in at the north-pole (mostly), and photons go in at the south-pole (mostly), so the streams out of the Earth are both photons and anti-photons.

No.

The flux/stream of particles consists of SUBQUARKS: laevorotatory and dextrorotatory, the actual magnetic monopoles. Bosons travel longitudinally through these subquarks.

In the ether quantum theory, photons = bosons = neutrinos.

You lost me, you are talking about imaginary quarks and then even subquarks (unproven entities), also photons are a type of boson, like birds are a type of animal. Neutrinos are not real particles and can not be grouped with bosons.

I just wanted to know if using the charge field (ie real physical photons) helps to explain some of the data you have studied..

Regards,
Daniel

[Sandokhan]

Subquarks (not to mention quarks) are a fact of science.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/1 ... D.55.R2521

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20110116175 ... news/44784

Preon-quarkel structure of the electronS:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... m-computer

Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182 ... 19-01.html


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf

It can be taken as an exciting and already intriguing historical discovery of the substructure of quarks (and leptons), which has been long predicted, or as the first evidence for the composite model of quarks (and leptons), which has been long proposed since the middle of 1970’s [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It may dramatically change not only the so-called “common sense” in physics or science but also that in philosophy, which often states that quarks (and leptons) are the smallest and most fundamental forms (or particles) of matter in the “mother nature”.


Direct, absolute proofs of the existence of subquarks:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1998110

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1998179


I just wanted to know if using the charge field (ie real physical photons) helps to explain some of the data you have studied..


Mathis' charge field is GENERATED by the potential.

Always remember the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

Mathematical proof of the existence of the potential (scalar waves, longitudinal waves, ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1994059 (three consecutive messages)

The Whittaker longitudinal helical waves from the scalar potential, which in turn create the magnetic fields and the Birkeland currents.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1999598 (topological considerations of the Aharonov-Bohm effect)