Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 4). Dayton Miller and 30 years of proofs which negate STR and call into question Copernicanism.

Unlike Einstein, DC Miller performed over 300.000 experiments proving that there was an ether, and that Earth mobility was undetected. Show me one single experiment Einstein performed.

Einstein’s doubt:

Einstein: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 in Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 400).

Einstein to astronomer Erwin Freundlich in 1913: “If the speed of light is in the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false” (ibid., p. 207).

Einstein: “My whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.”  And so, they are Einstein.  Miller was right pace the first quote, and Sagnac was right confirming the second quote. 

Einstein’s house of cards

Georges Sagnac’s experiments, which disproved the constancy of the speed of light, and proved an ether, were rather miraculously, incorporated, and consumed by ‘The Science’ to support time dilation and STR!  Sagnac’s effect, which is used in GPS, measurement, and gyroscope technologies, disproved STR of course.  Sagnac proved there are absolutes when measuring light speed and the ether which STR does not support.  Experiments using Sagnac’s method which followed his 1913 effort, also found the same.  Not a single Relativist can point to an experiment disproving Sagnac. 

Sagnac never confronted Einstein and his fantasy-world directly.  But Dayton Miller did.  Miller like those before him who registered negative results when trying to prove STR and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, was a Copernican Sunworshipper.  He was a very well-known American physicist and a key figure in the US science establishment.  He was not a man to be ignored.

Dayton Miller’s biography in summary:

·       PhD in science in 1890 from Princeton University

·       President of both the American Physical Society (1925-1926) and Acoustical Society of America (1913-1933)

·       Chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council (1927-1930)

·       Chairman of the physics department of Case School of Applied Science (aka: Case Western University)

·       Active member of the National Academy of Sciences.

During a 31-year period from approximately 1902-1933, Miller produced over 300.000 experimental tests which confirmed the 19^th and early 20th century’s interferometer measurements including Sagnac’s, that no mechanical mobility or motion of the Earth could be detected, and there appeared to be an ether.  Miller’s experimentation is the most thorough and detailed study in history of trying to prove heliocentricity and the Earth’s movement through an ether.  All he found was that the Earth appeared immobile and that an ether acted on the Earth. 

Miller Time

So, what did Miller do?

Dayton Miller constructed (to paraphrase Joe Biden), the most extensive and sophisticated interferometer experiment in history.  Miller built the largest and most sensitive collection of equipment ever devised to record and measure the ‘interference’ readings of light beams.  As a devout Copernican he was simply trying to prove the theory of heliocentricity and STR.

(Miller’s Interferometer machine on Mount Wilson)

Miller took great care with his creation.  At extraordinary cost he floated the interferometer device on a pool of mercury to eliminate friction.  He employed different bases including, wood, metal and concrete.  Miller performed tests at different times of the day, different seasons of the year, different altitudes, including the Mount Wilson observatory near Pasadena California, and at different latitudes with differing light sources.  He produced his observations over a 3 decade long period. 

Miller also took precautions against thermal distortions by insulating the apparatus in one- inch cork and by applying uniform parabolic heaters and taking account of human body heat.  He covered the interferometer in glass so that drift would not be inhibited.  He used a 50x magnification telescope to observe the fringes, which allowed him to see down to the hundredth scale.  Miller even switched to an interferometer made of aluminum and brass to eliminate possible effects from magneto-constriction.

It was a comprehensive and largely incorruptible setup.  Beyond reproach or critique. 

The first round of testing ensued from 1902-1916, when Miller performed over 200,000 different readings.  By contrast, the 1887 Michelson-Morley had a total of 36 readings on an apparatus that was much smaller and less accurate.  The second round occurred between 1921 and 1933, when Miller performed over 100,000 trials (D. C. Miller, “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 352-367, 1933). 

In total we have some 300.000 measurements.

What did Miller find?

Miller replicated the results from Michelson-Morley’s 1887 endeavor (repeated by Michelson himself in 1925 and 1929), which perfectly corresponded to the other interferometer measurements of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  Miller found a mobility measurement of roughly 3 km per second, which is 1/10^th of the expected result if the Earth was moving at 108.000 km / hour or roughly 66.000 miles per hour.  Michelson-Morley had discovered a mobility rate of roughly 5 km / second.  Yet ‘The Science’ as it did with earlier interferometer results, ascribed a ‘null’ or even a ‘negative’ value to Miller’s outputs in order to better argue against the outcomes.  This was entirely specious and false.  The results were positive but far below the expected helio-centric flight pattern of 30 km / second. 

In a letter dated October 4^th, 1930, Miller emphasises that:

‘It is true that nearly all the writers at the present time interpret the experiments as giving a definite null effect, and most of them assume that it is final.  The truth of the matter is the experiment never gave a null effect.  My present determinations are exactly in agreement with the 1887 results of Michelson and Morley. This fact has been widely announced especially in England, but the theory of relativity seems to be so acceptable to many persons that they overlook the apparent discrepancy.’ (Arthur Lynch, The Case Against Einstein, p. 45)

As Miller suggests, ‘The Science’ by 1930 was already deeply invested in the fantasy-world of Einstein.  Careers, monies, publications were all built on this ‘brave new world’ of paradigmatic physics.  No one eating from this trough had any incentive to change course (see Brush, ‘Why Was Relativity Accepted?’)  This is always the case with scientific ‘paradigms’ as described by Thomas Kuhn (‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’), who oddly left out egos and the allure of money, fame, and importance, when describing his cycles of scientific ‘revolutions’. 

Comprehensive and convincing

(Miller’s experiments identified ether drift and movement towards Draco)

Miller’s experiments went further than those conducted by Sagnac (1913) and Michelson-Gale (1926).  Both Sagnac and Michelson discovered absolute motion by detecting the differences in the speed of light of two beams within the same medium.  Neither however were designed to detect the ether drift against the Earth.  Miller’s experiments did however track the ether drift and his results showed that such a drift was originating from the southern celestial hemisphere in the direction of the constellation Draco in the middle of the ‘Great Magellanic Cloud’ (“The Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson Solar Observatory,” Physical Review, 19:407-408, 1922).

One of the interesting aspects of Miller’s results is that they were calculated in relation to ‘sidereal time’, or more plainly, ‘star time’ that is, against the displacement between a star and the Earth, as opposed to the Sun and the Earth.  In this context a daily Earth-rotation from star-time yields 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds; while using the Sun as displacement, gives us 24 hours exactly.  This shows that the ether is drifting in relation to the stars and gives a more definitive picture of absolute motion. 

An analysis of Miller’s results indicates an amazing correlation with alignment of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) and the universal ether flow.  Miller found the following variations by season in his ether flows:

February (early)          9.8 km per second

April (early)                 10.1 km per second

June (early)                 maxima

August (early)             11.2 km per second

September (mid)        9.6 km per second

December (early)        minima

The data reveals an apparent fluctuation based on the Sun’s position with respect to the northern hemisphere where Miller performed the experiments.  The ether drift is at its maximum (~11 km per second) when the Sun is at the maximum latitude of its 47° annual ecliptic movement.  The ether drift is at its minimum (~9 km / sec) when the Sun is at the minimum of its 47° annual ecliptic (23.5° in the northern hemisphere and 23.5° in the southern).  

The ether drift also varies between the maximum and minimum by a proportion commensurate with the remaining positions of the Sun.  In other words, the farther away the Sun is (or the steeper the angle) from Miller’s apparatus, the less the ether drift speed.  This is quite astonishing and suggests that the ether moves around the Earth, and that the Earth is not moving through the ether. 

This conclusion is replicated by many other observations.  One example is a study performed by Copernicans Smoot, Gorenstein and Muller, who also sought to find the motion of the Earth (Physical Review Letters, 39, 898, 1977).  As reported by Michael Rowan-Robinson, the quest was to find a “dipole anisotropy of order 10^-4 to 10^-3…due to the random motions that galaxies have with respect to each other and to the cosmological frame of reference. The radiation should look slightly hotter in the direction we are traveling towards, and slightly colder in the direction we are traveling from, by an amount ΔT/T ≈ v/c, due to the Doppler shift.”

This study was important because “Failure to detect this effect would put us in the uncomfortable position of happening to be exactly at rest with respect to the cosmological frame.”  In other words, it would show the Earth at the center and immobile in space.  Although the Smoot team, found an anisotropy, it made little sense and did not get them out of the ‘uncomfortable position.’  As Rowan-Robinson admits, “the magnitude of the velocity deduced for the Milky Way, 600 km/sec, is so large as to throw existing ideas about our cosmic environment into disarray.” (Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Ether drift detected at last,” Nature, Vol. 270, November 3, 1977, p. 9).

Any detection of an ether drift abolishes STR and opens up Copernican theory to criticism and investigation.

Einstein’s rebuttal

(No better assessment than this exists of the magic fantasy show called Relavitity and the consummate circus performer Einstein).

To anyone paying attention during the Corona scamdemic, or the fake Climate Change claims, the methods employed by ‘The Science’ against Miller’s irrefutable evidence against both STR and heliocentricity would be expected and predicted. 

Miller did exchange information with Einstein, who from his Mount Olympus did condescend from time to time, to answer Miller.  Einstein was so obviously alarmed by the results of Miller’s experiments that he stated quite plainly to one of his colleagues: “If Michelson-Morley is wrong (i.e. if Miller confirms the results of Michelson-Morley), then relativity is wrong.” (Sir Herbert Samuel in the grounds of Government House, Jerusalem 1923 (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107).  Miller, like Sagnac had not only replicated the Michelson-Morley results, but he had also deepened and widened the problems for STR and heliocentricity.  Now an ether was both measurable and determined. 

But Einstein refused to even look at the results.  In 1926 the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper ran a headline: “Case Scientist Will Conduct Further Studies in Ether Drift: Einstein Discounts Experiments”:

“Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

“The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results,” Dr. Miller said.

“He has been saying for thirty years that the interferometer experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We never said they gave negative results, and they did not in fact give negative results. He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature.”  (The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 27 Jan. 1926)

The above summarises Einstein quite nicely.  He was clueless about the details of Miller’s 24-years of experimentation (at that time).  He himself had never conducted a single experiment to justify his theories so knew nothing about the process.  Einstein assumed Miller was stupid and would not take variables both dependent and independent into account, including heat transfer.  He wrongly (on purpose) attributes the results to null or even negative, which makes it easier for his cult to rationalise, when they were not negative but showed an ether impact of a few km per second.  Yet this little grey-haired man, writing absurd fiction, ignoring hard data and proven measurements, was supposedly the ’greatest scientist in history’.  

Einstein knew that Miller had destroyed STR.  In a 1925 letter to Edwin E. Slosson, he admits:

“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following.… Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid.…Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory” (from July 1925, Dr. James DeMeo: ‘Dayton Miller’s Ether- Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look,’ 2002)

So, what to do when a pet theory which has bequeathed an industry and a cadre of self-interested, monied power brokers and ‘scientists’ is so comprehensively deposed by evidence?  Destroy the provider of such proofs and all his works.  Does this not sound familiar in an age of Corona and Climate nonsense, amongst many other non-sciences?  Send out Winston Smith, rewrite history and facts, and memory hole those embarrassing contra-proofs. 

Some clear evidence shows that Einstein was doing his best to ignore or even stifle experiments designed to show the same positive results as Michelson-Morley.  In an interview Robert Shankland (more below) arranged with Einstein in 1952, he asked Einstein about the recently published paper on Relativity by J. L. Synge who predicted a small positive effect in a Michelson-Morley-type experiment. Shankland reports:

“Einstein stated strongly that he felt Synge’s approach could have no significance. He felt that even if Synge devised an experiment and found a positive result, this would be completely irrelevant….[Later] he again said that more experiments were not necessary, and results such as Synge might find would be ‘irrelevant,’ He told me not to do any experiments of this kind.” (R. S. Shankland, “Conversations with Albert Einstein,” American Journal of Physics, 31:47-57, 1963, pp. 53-54, cited in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, p. 366).

There we have the ‘great scientist’ Einstein in full view.  Don’t do any experiments.  Ignore contrary results.  Dismiss them out of hand.  The only thing Miller did was confirm the ‘trivial’ results of Michelson- Morley by only creating 300,000 trials in contrast to the 36 trials by Michelson- Morley, and by showing from which direction the ether drift originated.  Einstein did zero experiments to prove his fantasy-world. 

An example is the ‘Twin Paradox’, where twins are separated, one heads into space, one remains on the Earth.  The space traveler returns and is much younger than the Earth-bound twin (due to gravity supposedly).  This is biologically impossible, but the main point is that it was the French physicist P. Langevin in 1911, not Einstein, who was responsible for inventing the Twin paradox to explain Special Relativity (Cohen, Revolution in Science, p. 411).  Few have heard of Langevin. This thought experiment - devoid of mechanical proof - is always offered up as ‘proof of STR’ because the complex maths no one understands can resolve ‘the paradox’ of time dilation.

Shankland Dismisses Miller’s Findings

(I think Einstein meant human gullibility not stupidity, as in for instance, blindly believing in arcane maths as a proxy for reality)

D.C. Miller, one of the most thorough of experimental and observational scientists in modern history, died in 1941.  Einstein who performed no experiments, was to die in 1955, but before he died, and unable to address any of Miller’s results and challenges, he secured the services of a loyal Einsteinian, one Robert Shankland, to do a hatchet job of Miller’s irresistible works. 

Shankland had been a student of Miller’s for many years, and post-1941 after Miller died, he moved from the ‘Miller camp’ to the Einstein encampment, undoubtedly observing where the winds of fortune and fame were blowing within ‘The Science’.  Relativity as a ‘law’ and godlike commandment was only ratified on Mount Science during and after World War II.  The money and prestige soon followed this carving into stone.  Undoubtedly Shankland saw an opportunity to enhance his career. 

Shankland published his shoddy study on Miller, attempting to discredit some 30 years and 300.000 elaborate and painstaking experimental observations, the very month and year of Einstein’s death.  More hagiography to grace the golden Yoda one assumes, in return for money and influence. 

Shankland’s report, as with all the hatchet jobs from ‘The Science’ is poor reading, full of misrepresentations as well as appeals to criticisms that had already been thoroughly addressed years earlier.  Shankland and friends searched for and emphasized the random errors in Miller’s data which every experiment has, and selected only certain data sheets to examine, namely those in which Miller used a parabolic heater and as control experiments.  (R. S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone and G. Kuerit, “Analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 27(2):167- 178, April 1955)

None of Miller’s conclusions were based on these control experiments and they constitute only a tiny fraction of the total experimentation database (DeMeo, “Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look,” pp. 23-25).  The Shankland rubbishing is just another sad but all too familiar story with ‘The Science’.  It does nothing to discredit Miller but does confirm that the Relativists and Copernicans were and are, not only mendacious and vicious, but devoid of experimental proofs of their own, and find recourse in disparagement and tangential disagreements with Miller’s results.  The main objective was simply to bury Miller and censor any reference to his 300.000 odd observations (Robert Shankland, “Conversations with Albert Einstein II,” American Journal of Physics, 41:895-901, July 1973). 

Back to reality

We know the above is true because Miller had addressed the issues around temperature contamination which the Shankland team of course ignored.

“It is exactly for answering these questions and others, that the experiments have been continued over a period of six years, in which time thousands of readings have been made.  Every disturbing cause that could be thought of has been exhaustively studied; among these are: daily and annual variations in temperature, meteorological conditions, radiant heat, magnetism, magnetostriction, differential gravitation, gyrostatic action, influence of method of illumination, transparent and opaque coverings of the light path, speed and direction of rotation [of the apparatus], lack of balance in rotating parts [of the interferometer], position of the observer, and other conditions. One after another, these disturbances have been shown not to produce the observed effects….The solution is entirely consistent with the observations of Michelson and Morley of 1887, and those of Morley and Miller of 1902-1906….The reported effect has always been present; it is clearly shown to be directly related to sidereal time, that is, to a cosmic cause.”

“In making the observations, two independent quantities are noted, the direction in which the interferometer points when the effect is maximum, and the amount of periodic displacement of the interference fringes. Each of these two sets of readings leads to an independent determination of the right ascension and declination of the apex of the supposed motion of the earth in space. It is very significant that these two determinations are wholly concordant”. (Dayton C. Miller, Nature, 117:890, 1926)

Miller’s explanation is rather clear.  All control mechanisms and groups were deployed within the thousands of observations to confirm the readings.  Shankland and ‘The Science’ have lied and dissembled in their capricious remonstrance against Miller.  Shocking?  Not. 

Nobel laureate Maurice Allais has also done an extensive study of Miller’s results and has concluded in his abstract: “It is utterly impossible to consider that the regularities displayed in Miller’s interferometric observations can be explained by temperature effects. As a result the light velocity is not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted.”  (Reginald Cahill, “The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005: A Critical Review of the Evidence,” in Einstein and Poincaré: The Physical Vacuum, 2006, p. 131). 

Pace Allais, a ‘trivial positive effect’ of some 3 km per second, was what Miller found confirming the Michelson-Morley positive results.  

There are plenty of experiments confirming Miller’s 1925 results, including the non-interferometer coaxial cable experiments of DeWitte (1991) and Torr and Kolen (1984).  Using cable completely nullifies the heat transfer objection. In analysing these results physicist Cahill concludes: “So the effect is certainly cosmological and not associated with any daily thermal effects, which in any case would be very small as the cable is buried” (T. Cahill Novel Gravity Probe B Gravitational Wave Detection, Flinders University, August 21, 2004, pp. 16-17).

So much for Shankland. 

Michelson almost recants

Miller’s evidence against Einstein was corroborated from another unlikely source, Albert Michelson himself.  In 1926-1929, Michelson, with Francis Pease and Fred Pearson, made several attempts at repeating the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.  Perhaps the results of the 1925 experiment that Michelson performed with Henry Gale a year earlier were too perplexing for him since it produced the same positive results that Michelson should have recognized in 1887.  Their 1929 paper, “Repetition of the Michelson- Morley Experiment”, reported on three attempts to produce fringe shifts, using light-beam interferometry similar to that originally employed in the 1887 Michelson- Morley experiments.

·       The first experiment, which used the same 22-meter light path as the original Michelson-Morley experiment, predicted a fringe shift of 0.017 but stated “no displacement of this order was observed.”

·       The second experiment in 1927 used a 32-meter light path and again stated: “no displacement of the order anticipated was obtained.”

·       However, rather than report that he obtained a small positive result, like Sagnac and Miller, Michelson obfuscates his results and claims only that they didn’t produce what was ‘anticipated’.  (“The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 5 (2), pp. 203-242, July 1933, DeMeo, p. 18.)

Michelson, a true Sunworshipper, after 40 years of failure to find the Earth’s mobility and deny an ether, could not contemplate nor consider, that maybe heliocentricity and STR were both wrong. 

Bottom Line

I am not sure how many times you need to experimentally prove the same result before ‘The Science’ is changed.  Or, pace Kuhn’s somewhat naïve analysis, before a new paradigm is generated.  Apparently STR and heliocentricity are so immutably carved into the tablets and commandments of ‘The Science’ and the industry is so lucrative and massive, that it is nigh impossible for this paradigm to admit to a mistake. 

We know that Dayton C. Miller proved two postulates:  1) That an ether exists and 2) That the Earth does not move at 30 km / second, but a movement either of the ether, or of the Earth’s mobility, can be measured at only at 3-10 km/second.

Miller’s 300.000 odd experiments lead to some obvious conclusions. 

• First, there is absolute motion and a measurable ether which negates STR. 

• Second, the Earth might be immobile and there is an ether flowing around and against the Earth (the Coriolis effect) or,

• Third, the Earth is mobile through an ether but moving at a fraction of the purported 108.000 km per hour, at somewhere between 10.000 to 35.000 km per hour, again negating STR and upending modern cosmology and physics. 

All three hypotheses call into question heliocentricity and the size of the universe, including the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun, if that is indeed what we have.  But no dissension or discussion of heliocentricity will be tolerated, akin to ‘we will not tolerate dissent and criticism of the saintly Corona stabbinations…’

In a society in which real science is venerated, the obvious and voluminous disproofs against both STR and the underlying assumption of heliocentricity would never be so censored, ignored and dismissed.  The state of ‘The Science’ is thus twisted, corrupt, parlous, and tawdry.  It is a secular religion.  The reality is that science took a wrong turn in 1543 and without adequate proofs and testing has erected an entire set of fictions it promotes as facts. 

“All discussions of the experimental detections of absolute motion over the last 100 years are now banned from the mainstream physics publications” (Reginald T. Cahill, The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005: A Critical Review of the Evidence, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, December 7, 2004).

Both Sagnac and Miller confirm the quote above.  Once ‘The Science’ becomes an establishment paradigm it is very difficult for facts, reality, and experimental proof to dislodge it.  Propaganda, expert-worship, complex maths veneration, and strict censorship are deployed to police and protect the massive industry which has been created.  $cientism. 

===Related posts

Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 3). Georges Sagnac and the ‘Sagnac effect’

Heliocentricity and Scientism (part 2)

Is Heliocentricity a proven fact?

An overview of Special Theory of Relativity (STR)

An introduction to the underlying maths of STR

Key scientists and actors within the STR domain

James Webb Telescope observations which refute parts of STR and the Big Bang

Herbert Dingle’s unanswered clock paradox and the inherent contradiction within STR

Scientism and Special Relativity, the Paradigm is ending

From Aristotle to the Big Bang

(quite a few posts about the scientism of the Big Bang, just use the search icon)