🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Mitchell,

I absolutely agree with you that

[M.J.]
Physics cannot do without the aether

[S.K.]
And relativists understand it no less than you and me, they only take
a position of doubting Thomas. We all understand the reason of this
ballet pose. The presence of material medium fully debunks the
relativistic conception based on the constant velocity of light  in
all reference frames. So they all are speaking of immaterial aether,
geometrical aether, virtual aether etc. Bob also formerly said so, but
the more evidences appear the more he ignores them.

So we basically cannot prove something to Bob. His basic unwilling to
understand something doubting the Einsteinism is his position
irrespectively of arguments which he requires. How much evidences have
been already given - he does not and will never accept. He even
spuriously says,

[B.K.]
You could say that but we know entrained aether contradicts stellar 
aberration

[S.K.]
Nothing to say further! We cannot think him non-erudite, this means,
he perfectly knows, the aberration just has been explained from the
view of aether and is fine calculated in the model experiment on the
water. It is just necessary for aberration, the light to propagate in
some medium relatively to which the signal receiver moves. In the
considered case, your analogy with a bullet is proper and often used.
Only, please don't extend it substantiating the photon theory. The
theory of photon is doomed the same as Einsteinian relativism (this is
a large separate talk begun long ago, and it will be finished not so
soon).

I only think, you unnecessarily complicated your explanation of the
aberration with the following supposition:

[M.J.]
That is true only if all of the aether is hypothesized to be rigidly
attached to the Sun, with no part of it being carried along by other
celestial bodies such as the Earth. In that case it is obvious that
light
waves arriving at the Earth would be moving directly away from the
true
position of the Sun, and would show no aberration. 

Gravitationally entrained aether, however, does *not* contradict
stellar
aberration, because each celestial body entrains a pool of aether
within
the region in which its gravitational field is dominant. That means
the
Sun entrains a vast pool of aether which moves with it, but *only* out
to
the point where the gravitational field of the Earth becomes stronger.
Result: light moves straight out from the true position of the Sun
*until*
it encounters the pool of aether entrained by and moving with the
Earth.
At that point, it is aberrated due to the relative motion of the
Earth's
aether relative to that of the Sun. Crossing the boundary from the
Sun's
pool of aether into the pool of aether moving with the Earth has the
effect of giving the incoming photons a velocity component of 18
miles/sec
opposite to the direction of Earth's motion in its orbit, and produces
the
aberration that is, in fact, observed. 

 [S.K.]
The aberration caused by the Sun also exists, but in this case the
effect is concealed by the size and fade of Sun disk. It is mainly
caused by the Earth rotation and, as a second-order effect, by the
Earth's orbit ellipticity. The around-the-Earth boundary layer of the
aether is able to distort additionally the value of angle of
aberration, but it does not determine the existence of the very
effect. To the point, this all follows from your correct premise that
the light is deviated by the entities filling the pool where it
travels. However in your explanation of the aberration two effects
superimpose. The aberration as it is is caused by the Earth motion,
and the additional effects are caused by the difference of velocities
of the aether in space.

Concerning the light deflection in the field of Sun, the statement of
problem is another. Here we first have to account the refraction
effect caused by a large temperature gradient in the pool of Sun. The
fact that the relativist ignore it has the reason, its accounting is
disadvantageous for them. So the relativists calculate this effect at
the conditions approximated to the Earth conditions, only take less
pressure of the gas medium. However with the T-gradient growing the
refraction effect will abruptly ascend and is able to overlap their
gravitational shift which is not so large as the relativists have
calculated.

If we speak of the experiments on which the relativists base, they
don't stand the criticism at all. I wrote of it more detailed in my
post of 2002-10-16 to Franz Heymann in the thread "What's a free
photon?":

Citation:

[F.H.]
The transverse momentum acquired by a photon passing close by the limb
of the sun  has been observed.

[S.K.]
If we look at the photos of stars shift obtained in the similar
experiments by Campbell and Trumpler, we can see that there was less
than a dozen pure radial shifts of 112 observed stars of two
near-solar-disk zones, while most of them have an inclined either
tangential shift or no shift at all. With it one can trace no stable
regularity. For example, the tracks of stars 98 and 99 cross each
other. The stars 66, 55, 57, 43, 73, 29, 77 haven't shifted at all,
though they are in the near zone. The star 86 has shifted
tangentially, while the neighbouring to it star 82 was immovable. The
same for stars 104 and 101, and with it the near-placed star 102 has
shifted  approximately radially. The alongside stars 11 and 12, 14
have the opposite shifts. The same concerns the stars 44 and 17, 70
and 77, etc. If one considers such result positive, what for have we
to experiment at all? It would be simpler to paint or to construct in
a computer; this will more precisely correspond to the desired effect,
and one hasn't spend money for expeditions. Complete profit. ;-)

Uncitation.

The relativists don't care, Bob as well. It is of no importance for
them. You absolutely right noticed as to the governmental religion.
They need nothing more. Why, what physics? What for? ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.