0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In what way have Maxwell's equations failed?
Quote from: Hal on 23/09/2019 09:22:07I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.In what way have Maxwell's equations failed? When I detect individual photons, where has Planck's theory failed? If we add the relativistic correction for gravitational potential, where does the Pound-Rebka experiment fail to support relativity?
I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.
the speed of light reference
The experimental hypothesis verification of the ether existence in nature, i.e. the material medium, responsiblefor electromagnetic waves propagation has been performed. The optical measuring method of the ether movementvelocity and the ether kinematic viscosity has been proposed and realized. The results of systematic measurementsdo not contradict the original hypothesis statements and can be considered as experimental imagination confirmationof the ether existence in nature, as the material medium.
The experiment [7-9] is performed within the electromagneticwaves optical band, differed by carefulpreparation, veried methods of the investigation conductingand statistically signicant measurement results.The measured ether drift parameters mismatchedto the ether imaginations available at that time, as stationarymedium. Orbital component of the ether driftvelocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around theSun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected.Miller obtained, that the ether drift velocity at theheight of 265 m above the sea level (Clevelend, USA)has the value about 3 km/sec, and at the height of1830 m (Mount Wilson observatory, USA) | about 10 km/sec. The apex coordinates the Solar system movementwere determined: direct ascension α ≈ 17:5h ,declination δ ≈ +65° . Such movement is almost perpendicularto an ecliptic plain (coordinates of the NorthPole ecliptic: α ≈ 18h , δ ≈ +66° ). Miller showed, thatthe observed effects can be explained, if to accept, thatthe ether stream has a galactic (space) origin and thevelocity more than 200 km/sec. Almost perpendicularlydirectional orbital component of the velocity islost on this background. Miller referred the velocitydecrease of the ether drift from 200 km/sec up to 10km/sec to unknown reasons.
The positive results of Miller's experiment by virtueof their general physical signicance attracted the physicists'great attention at that time. In the monographs[15] 150, devoted to the ether drift's problem and referringto 1921-1930, are mentioned that almost everyonewere concentrated on the discussion of Miller's results.The possible inuencing of the diffcult considered exteriorreasons (temperature, pressure, solar radiation,air streams etc.) on the optical cruciform interferometer,sensitive to them, which had considerable overalldimensions [16] in Miller's experiments was discussedmost widely in these works. Besides by virtue of methodicallimitations being in the works [7-9] and [10],their authors did not manage to show experimentallycorrectly, that the movement, detected in their experiments,can be explained by the Earth relative movementand the medium of material origin, responsiblefor electromagnetic waves propagation [1-3]. Howeverthe most essential reason, which made Miller's contemporariesconsider his experiments erratic, was thatin numerous consequent works, for example, such as[17-20], Miller's results were not conrmed. In theexperiments [17-20] so-called the \zero results" wereobtained, i.e. the ether drift was not detected.Thus, taking into consideration the works deciencies[7-9], [10] and a major number of experiments witha zero result available, it is possible to understand thephysicists' mistrust to the works [7-9], [10] at that time,the results of which pointed the necessity of the fundamentalphysical concept variations. The analyticalreview of the most signicant experiments, performedwith the purpose of the ether drift search, is explainedin the works [1-3, 21].In 1933 D.K. Miller, in his summary work [22], performedthe comparative analysis of multiple unsuccessfulattempts of his followers to detect the ether driftexperimentally. He paid attention that in all such attempts,except the experiment [10], optical interferometerswere placed in hermetic metallic chambers. Theauthors of these experiments tried to guard the devicesfrom exposures with such chambers. In the experiment[10] it was placed into a fundamental building ofthe optical workshop at the Mount Wilson observatoryfor stabilizing the interferometer temperature schedule.The hermetic metallic chamber was not applied,and the ether drift was detected. Its velocity had thevalue W ≈ 6000 m/sec. Miller made the conclusion:"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesir-able while exploring the problem of ether capturing. Theexperiment should be made in such a way that therewere no shields between free ether and light way in theinterferometer".Later, new opportunities for conducting experimentson the ether drift discovery have appeared alsoafter the instruments occurrence based on completelydiverse ideas (resonators, masers, Messbauer's eectetc.). Such experiments were held [23-26]. And againthe massive metallic chamber usage was the commoninstrumental error of these experiments. In the works[23,24,26] there were the metallic resonators, in thework [25] | a lead chamber, because it was necessaryto use gamma radiation. The authors of theseworks, perhaps, didn't pay attention to Miller's conclusionsof 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability inthe ether drift experiments. The phenomena physicalinterpretation of the essential ether drift velocity reductionat metallic shields available was given by V.A.Atsukovsky for the rst time, having explained majorether-dynamical metal resistance of a Fermi's surfaceavailable in them [6].
Perhaps people could get themselves out of the habit of repeating the propaganda about the MMX disproving the aether. Lorentz Ether Theory came into being as a direct response to the MMX null result and is still the best theory we have to account for relativity today.
I'd like to hear some opinion about this research on measuring ether drift.What can cause different results when the experiments are measured at different altitude?Why the Earth movement around the Sun was considered significant, while galactic motion with much higer magnitude got less attention?Why Miller's conclusions of 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability in the ether drift experiments was ignored?THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BANDYu.M. Galaev1The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine,12 Ac. Proskury St., Kharkov, 61085 UkraineReceived November 15, 2002QuoteThe experimental hypothesis verification of the ether existence in nature, i.e. the material medium, responsiblefor electromagnetic waves propagation has been performed. The optical measuring method of the ether movementvelocity and the ether kinematic viscosity has been proposed and realized. The results of systematic measurementsdo not contradict the original hypothesis statements and can be considered as experimental imagination confirmationof the ether existence in nature, as the material medium.QuoteThe experiment [7-9] is performed within the electromagneticwaves optical band, differed by carefulpreparation, veried methods of the investigation conductingand statistically signicant measurement results.The measured ether drift parameters mismatchedto the ether imaginations available at that time, as stationarymedium. Orbital component of the ether driftvelocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around theSun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected.Miller obtained, that the ether drift velocity at theheight of 265 m above the sea level (Clevelend, USA)has the value about 3 km/sec, and at the height of1830 m (Mount Wilson observatory, USA) | about 10 km/sec. The apex coordinates the Solar system movementwere determined: direct ascension α ≈ 17:5h ,declination δ ≈ +65° . Such movement is almost perpendicularto an ecliptic plain (coordinates of the NorthPole ecliptic: α ≈ 18h , δ ≈ +66° ). Miller showed, thatthe observed effects can be explained, if to accept, thatthe ether stream has a galactic (space) origin and thevelocity more than 200 km/sec. Almost perpendicularlydirectional orbital component of the velocity islost on this background. Miller referred the velocitydecrease of the ether drift from 200 km/sec up to 10km/sec to unknown reasons.QuoteThe positive results of Miller's experiment by virtueof their general physical signicance attracted the physicists'great attention at that time. In the monographs[15] 150, devoted to the ether drift's problem and referringto 1921-1930, are mentioned that almost everyonewere concentrated on the discussion of Miller's results.The possible inuencing of the diffcult considered exteriorreasons (temperature, pressure, solar radiation,air streams etc.) on the optical cruciform interferometer,sensitive to them, which had considerable overalldimensions [16] in Miller's experiments was discussedmost widely in these works. Besides by virtue of methodicallimitations being in the works [7-9] and [10],their authors did not manage to show experimentallycorrectly, that the movement, detected in their experiments,can be explained by the Earth relative movementand the medium of material origin, responsiblefor electromagnetic waves propagation [1-3]. Howeverthe most essential reason, which made Miller's contemporariesconsider his experiments erratic, was thatin numerous consequent works, for example, such as[17-20], Miller's results were not conrmed. In theexperiments [17-20] so-called the \zero results" wereobtained, i.e. the ether drift was not detected.Thus, taking into consideration the works deciencies[7-9], [10] and a major number of experiments witha zero result available, it is possible to understand thephysicists' mistrust to the works [7-9], [10] at that time,the results of which pointed the necessity of the fundamentalphysical concept variations. The analyticalreview of the most signicant experiments, performedwith the purpose of the ether drift search, is explainedin the works [1-3, 21].In 1933 D.K. Miller, in his summary work [22], performedthe comparative analysis of multiple unsuccessfulattempts of his followers to detect the ether driftexperimentally. He paid attention that in all such attempts,except the experiment [10], optical interferometerswere placed in hermetic metallic chambers. Theauthors of these experiments tried to guard the devicesfrom exposures with such chambers. In the experiment[10] it was placed into a fundamental building ofthe optical workshop at the Mount Wilson observatoryfor stabilizing the interferometer temperature schedule.The hermetic metallic chamber was not applied,and the ether drift was detected. Its velocity had thevalue W ≈ 6000 m/sec. Miller made the conclusion:"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesir-able while exploring the problem of ether capturing. Theexperiment should be made in such a way that therewere no shields between free ether and light way in theinterferometer".Later, new opportunities for conducting experimentson the ether drift discovery have appeared alsoafter the instruments occurrence based on completelydiverse ideas (resonators, masers, Messbauer's eectetc.). Such experiments were held [23-26]. And againthe massive metallic chamber usage was the commoninstrumental error of these experiments. In the works[23,24,26] there were the metallic resonators, in thework [25] | a lead chamber, because it was necessaryto use gamma radiation. The authors of theseworks, perhaps, didn't pay attention to Miller's conclusionsof 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability inthe ether drift experiments. The phenomena physicalinterpretation of the essential ether drift velocity reductionat metallic shields available was given by V.A.Atsukovsky for the rst time, having explained majorether-dynamical metal resistance of a Fermi's surfaceavailable in them [6].
The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation.
When you say the Miller experiment, do you mean this, roughly 100 year old experiment?https://www.nature.com/articles/115798b0Are you aware that other experiments have been done since then- with different outcomes and or interpretations?
Quote from: Hal on 27/02/2021 19:59:53The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation.No, rather it's because the evidence in support of relativity is significantly more vast and precise than the evidence against it.
Do you know a research attempted to do just that?
Quote from: Kryptid on 27/02/2021 20:58:39Quote from: Hal on 27/02/2021 19:59:53The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation.No, rather it's because the evidence in support of relativity is significantly more vast and precise than the evidence against it.I think the shielding effect should be one of the easiest hypotheses to prove or disprove. First make the measurement with metallic shield in place. Record the result, remove the shield, and take a new measurement. If both measurements give the same result, we can be more confident with current model of light propagation. Otherwise, it may need some revisions.Do you know a research attempted to do just that?
A net force on a parallel plate capacitor has been observed in a number of experiments, implying reactionless thrust/free energy.
Surprise! There is also an experiment that appears to agree with emission (ballistic) theory, hence disproving both the ether and relativity. This is the Venus planet radar range data anomaly as analyzed by Bryan G Wallace.