19th and early 20th experiments which found no movement of the Earth around the Sun.

Which is why Relativity was invented. Never taught of course. Just a conspiracy theory. Only the "anti's" bother with such things.

Relativity is Philosophical sophistry and a Business model

Scientism:

“Many writers pretend to understand [relativity], but simply do not. Many otherwise alert students studying relativity become logically bewildered and lose confidence in their own ability to think clearly as they slip into mysticism and become the next generation of scientific priests….The public has trusted the physicists, trusted them perhaps more, in this generation, than any other group.

……But in time, people will learn that physicists are no more immune to the perverse motivational currents of the times than any other professional people. Scientists have enormous, vested interests in protecting their theories – vested energy, time, money and indeed reputation.” (Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner, The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter- Revolution in Physics, 1979, pp. 88-91)

Consider the quote above written in 1979. The hope that people will wake up and see ‘the science’ for the charade it is, for the corrupt business model it is, for the philosophical sophistry it is, has not materialised. In fact, the submission to authority and ‘science’ is far more prevalent and slavish today, than in 1979.

Copernicanism in crisis

In the last post we discussed the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, the great impetus for Relativity, and the lack of proofs that the Earth orbits the Sun. Relativity was the only possible approach to explain away the lack of mechanical proof for the Earth’s rapid 108.000 km per hour march around the Sun.

The following experiments, which failed to detect the Earth’s motion, are rarely taught and are almost unknown. They are buried by ‘The Science’ as either irrelevant, or are trotted out as proof of Copernicanism even though they clearly disprove it! One cannot understand ‘why Relativity?’ if these failed endeavours are not understood.

Arago, 1810

Arago, a committed Copernican, attempted to measure how light particles were refracted by a glass prism in front of a telescope. He predicted that there would be different angles of refraction due to the different velocities of the stars and the motion of the Earth at different times of the day and year. The author has tried the same experiment as Arago and received the same results.

Contrary to his expectation, he found no difference in refraction between stars, time zones, or seasons.

Arago simply observed normal stellar aberration, as evidenced previously by Bradley in 1725 or 1728 (Persson 2011). Bradley’s fraudulent report on stellar parallax is discussed here. There was no indication of a noticeable parallax or movement of the Earth.

“Arago submitted the matter to the test of experiment, and concluded that the light coming from any star behaves in all cases of reflexion and refraction precisely as it would if the star were situated in the place which it appears to occupy in consequence of aberration, and the earth were at rest; so that the apparent refraction in a moving prism is equal to the absolute refraction in a fixed prism.” (E. T. Whittaker, p. 116)

In his reflections, Arago admitted that not having to change the focal length of his telescope when viewing a star, meant the Earth was immobile. This is because the invariant speed of light should accommodate both a receding Earth and an advancing Earth at six-month intervals. Simply put, if we are moving, you should have to adjust your telescope when investigating a single star and tracking it for one year. However, no adjustment to the telescope was needed (Arago, 1810).

Fresnel 1818

To explain away the Arago failure, Fresnel came up with an ingenious answer. He postulated that there is no effect on the incidence of starlight because the aether through which the light travelled, was being ‘dragged’ at least partially, by the magnifying glass of the telescope. Hence the optics were distorted. Blame the instrument! His postulates were:

· a certain amount of ether was ‘trapped’ within the glass,

· this aether must be denser than that of the surrounding air,

· it must be independent from aether in the surrounding air,

· the outside of the telescope’s glass must be immobile

· as the glass moved with the Earth, it would ‘trap’ the aether

Fresnel assumed the existence of the aether, without proving it existed and assumed the nature of light as a series of particles (light might be a wave of particles). It is easy to disprove the thought experiment of Fresnel. All telescopic views of stars, whether you use a glass telescope or a hollow telescope, show no bend of starlight. If we are moving at 108.000 km per hour this should not be the case (Fresnel, 1818).

There is something about the incidence of starlight received on the Earth that causes this phenomenon of unbending starlight. Light must be affected by gravity, yet we cannot detect such distortion. The least complicated answer for this phenomenon is that Earth is not moving. Feel free to offer another solution which would satsify William of Ockham.

Stokes 1849-67

In order to overturn the failed Fresnel thought experiment, Stokes came up with a mobile aether theory. He believed that an orb as large as the Earth must disturb the aether and that the aether was mobile in space and around the Earth. Based on this, Stokes felt that stellar aberration was caused by the Earth dragging the aether near its surface as it rotates. He invented the term ‘the etherosphere’, later used by Michelson (Swenson, p. 24).

Stokes’ rather complex and elaborate theories and ideas were eventually withdrawn. In essence he originally postulated that:

· there is light diffraction or a bending of light waves around bodies and light diffraction in the sky (Fresnel proved that we cannot observe this),

· given this, there is a vibration of aether particles at right angles to the plane of polarization (or where the direction of vibration of the waves is the same), except for crystals,

· we can surmise that the elastic properties of aether are the same in all materials,

· inertia (motion) is however anisotropic or heterogenous for all materials (sensible and observable)

In the end, Stokes’ aether behaves as a rigid solid for high-frequency oscillations of light but as a fluid for the slow-moving celestial bodies. It is therefore nonsensical. In 1867, further experiments forced Stokes to withdraw his theory. As with his predecessors he could find no proof of the Earth’s movement using light measurements (Stokes, pp. 9-15, 1845).

Fizeau 1851

Fizeau attempted to remedy the Arago and Fresnel failures. He theorised that there is an aether ‘drag’ which ‘entrained’ the Earth. Like water ‘entrained’ in a stream, the Earth is ‘entrained’ or pulled along by the aether stream in space. This prevents any mechanical calculation of its movement (this assumption is not logical in the author’s view, given we can certainly measure water velocity in a river as an observer in that water). Fizeau’s program was as follows:

• The Earth is moving through aether at 30 km / second (his ‘slit’ light-photon experiment provided him with this figure)

• The speed of light should increase with the Earth’s motion as measured in water,

• We can send 2 parallel light beams in opposite directions through tubes of rapidly flowing water,

• One beam should be traveling with the flow of water, the other against the flow,

• When the light beams meet back at the receiving plate, the one traveling against the flow of water should arrive later, just as a person swimming against a water current will need more time to complete a journey than one swimming with the current,

• Due to this, the velocity of light should be added to the velocity of the Earth’s motion (30 km/sec)

But the outcome was quite different than what Fizeau expected. The speed of light was not a sum of the velocity of the light added to the velocity of the Earth. The speed of light as measured in water did not increase. The only effect Fizeau found on the speed of light was that of the water’s refractive index which gave some credence to his ‘drag theory’. Again the Earth’s mobility was not detected (Fizeau, 1851).

This experimental failure had a great impact on Einstein. Einstotle often referred to the Fizeau failure to find the Earth’s motion as a motivation for Relativity.

“Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical aberration, especially Airy’s observations with a water-filled telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment.” (Shankland the Einstotle hit-man, apologist and hagiographer, 31:47-57, 1963)

Hoek 1868

To try and explain away Fizeau’s failure with water, Hoek used an interferometer. He arranged for a monochromatic light ray to emanate from a source of light, divided by a (weakly silver-coated) glass plate. Even if the whole apparatus were at rest in the aether, such an arrangement should generate interference fringes in the telescope.

Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, at least not in accord with an Earth moving at 30 km/sec. His results pre-empt those of Michelson in 1881, and Michelson-Morley in 1887. Hoek admitted that the Earth appeared to be immobile (Hoek, 1868).

Airy 1871

A confirmed Copernican, Airy attempted to disprove the negative results from Fresnel (1818) and Fizeau (1851). In 1871 he endeavoured to record the change in the direction of light passing through a refracting medium that was in motion, namely a water filled telescope on the ‘moving’ Earth. His experiments have been and still are, replicable.

Airy postulated that if a telescope was filled with water, then the starlight coming through the water should be slower than it would be in air and thus bend the starlight outward toward the side of the telescope and away from the eyepiece (just as we see light bent when we put a pencil in water).

To compensate for the outward bending of the starlight, Airy assumed he would need to tilt his water-filled telescope just a little more toward the lower end of the star so that its light would hit his eyepiece directly rather than hitting the side of the telescope. He did not need to do any such thing, much to his astonishment. Airy demonstrated that stellar aberrations occur even when a telescope is filled with water and measurements are taken from the moving Earth (an assumed moving medium in his experiment).

This is of course the opposite of what the theory predicts. As with Fizeau, the Airy experiments confirm what common sense tells us, namely that light propagates through dielectic (or poorly conducting matter) but at a reduced velocity. The stellar aberration hypothesis was disproven, leading to the conclusion that the Earth is immobile. This failure also helped mobilise Einstotle and the Relativists.

Mascart 1872

Mascart devised a complicated experiment to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether, by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is eventually reduced to just one angle. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the aether at 30 km/sec, the light’s plane of polarization should be affected. Mascart found no such results (reported in Lorentz, 1886).

Michelson 1881, 1887

In 1881 the famous German physicist A. Michelson, using a highly sensitive interferometer tried to refute the Airy experiment but much to his amazement, failed. He would try the same experiment in 1887 with the American Morley which again failed. You can see the tears and feel his pain when he writes: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (Michelson, p. 125). He re-attempted this experiment many times, including in 1925 with Gale and all were failures.

Lodge 1890’s

Oliver Lodge tried to rectify Michelson’s results and conducted experiments in the 1890s seeking evidence that light propagation was affected by being near large rotating masses. He failed. Lodge believed that an aether existed and was impacting mechanical measurements of the Earth’s mobility, but that it was difficult to find and like Arago, Fresnel and Fizeau, concluded that we can never measure the Earth’s mobility (Lodge, 1925).

Sagnac 1913

Sagnac’s 1913 experiment was carried out using a series of mirrors on a table. Sagnac was able to detect the rotation of his table as it rotated but was unable to detect any motion when the device was at rest on an allegedly moving Earth. Another failure. This experimented also disproved the invariant speed of light claim. Few, including PhDs in Physics, are aware of Sagnac’s experiment, yet his proofs are used everyday in communications, telephony equipment and gyroscopes. In the real world, Sagnac’s observations were proven correct.

Dayton Miller, 1920s and 30s

The unknown physicist Dayton Miller and his ~30 year experimentation which refutes Relativity is completely ignored by ‘The Science’ and is described here. Einstein knew all about Miller and wrote many times that Miller’s experiments disproved his theories. He never condescended to either debate Miller nor refute his observations of course. He was far too important to engage in such triviality.

Bottom Line

‘The Science’ is profoundly expert at mendacity, misdirection and triumphal declarations which contradict reality and experimentation (be aware of GenAI). Besides the failed experiments listed in this post, I have listed some post-1905 experiments which confirm no movement of the Earth here.

The Earth might move. But the proof is thin indeed. The claim of the Earth's mobility rests solely upon the discredited theory of Relativity, mathematical models and endless propaganda.

All hail (and shut up, don’t question and obey).

The Earth's motion or lack of mechanical proof. Michelson-Morley, Sagnac, Miller and the wizards of Relativity.

Augustin Fresnel, Letter, Annales de chimie et de physique 9 (1818)

Loyd Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, p. 24

E. T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Dublin University Press, Longmans, Green and Co., 1910, p. 116

François Arago, “Mémoire sur la vitesse de la lumière”, 1810. Académie des sciences Paris

G. Stokes, “On the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 27, pp. 9-15, 1845

Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868

A. Fizeau, Académie des sciences (Paris), Comptes Rendus 33 (1851)

A. Michelson in, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125

Hendrik Lorentz, “Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies,” Section VI, 1886

Robert S. Shankland, “Conversations with Albert Einstein,” American Journal of Physics, 31:47-57, 1963

J. E. Persson, (2011) The Great Confusion: Wave or Particle?