March 23, 20005
From: James DeMeo [demeo@mind.net] Sent: 23 March 2005 04:19 To: GravitationalAnomalies@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [GravitationalAnomalies] Re: Similarities in the DeWitte and Miller experiments
>Again, I ask why a helicoidal motion is assumed. Don't >the measurements of the motion of the Solar System as a unit >w.r.t. the CMBR indicate that the Solar System is travelling >in a straight line roughly towards the constellation Virgo? > >I thought the logical assumption is that all gravitating >systems are basically the same, but just differ on a scale >of magnitude, e.g. moons orbit planets, planets orbit stars, >stars orbit galactic centers and galaxies orbit supercluster >centers. Since the orbits involved in the larger systems >are so vast, the movements can be considered linear instead >of circular (or Keplerian to be more precise).
The CMBR anisotropy is a thermal signature which may or may not be the product of Earth's net motion. It says nothing about variation in light-speed, and so is completely acceptable to mainstream theories. The findings of MM, Miller, Michelson-Pease-Pearson, and now, Galaev, all point to a common set of cosmical coordinates, quite different from the CMBR anisotropy, suggesting the solar system's motion is roughly along the track of the various galactic arm-bands. Since the earth revolves around the sun, by definition, the motion is spiral-form.
Your assumption is not necessarily the only logical one. What do we do with all the studies showing variation in light-speed, aimed at a particular cosmical coordinate near the Draco-Vega-Hercules region? They cannot be logically ignored. This is more significant for the question of ether -- the postulated medium of light -- than the CMBR anisotropy, which is mostly used to argue for big-bang creationism. So I don't see CMBR as being more important for the question of ether, or for net motion of the planet. Isn't it possible, that region of space near Virgo is simply intriniscially slightly warmer? Why do we have to stick with the idea that the warmth is an apparent thing, caused by our motion in that direction? Isn't this explanation used to preserve the big bang theory, in the face of an observation which otherwise would demolish it (like so many other observations)? It reminds me of how they can see all those young and old galaxies, all mixed up in the Hubble deep field image, and somehow argue this look "at the beginning of time" looks so similar to regions claimed to be "younger". The evidence demolishes their theories, but they go through intellectual gymnastics to preserve it.
>But as far as models of the ether go, I believe if they >can account for the known motions of the moons and planets in >our Solar System, then the same model should be able to >account for the larger systems.
Miller's general discussions, at the end of his 1933 paper, went into a lot of such things explained by his findings. I've added to that a bit in my papers, even showing the seasonal variation in "dark matter wind" agrees with it, and now also, the sidereal variations noted by DeWitte. Reich's "Cosmic Superimposition" model suggests how such patterns emerge, and as I've shown is fully reconcilable with Miller -- it is quite elegant and powerful, uniting the cosmos from spiral galaxies to spiral-motions of planets to spiral hurricanes and spiral sea-shells, as the product of superimposing energy streams which move matter along (and create matter) in their streaming motions. As I understand, Borg and Nodlund (?) recently showed, there are spiral qualities of galactic light polarization, within the distribution of galaxies out in space.
>I also believe stationary ether models are ruled out for >obvious reasons; they cannot cause gravitational systems. > >It seems obvious to me also that if there is an ether, it >is both a light-carrying medium and the cause of gravitation. >AFAICT, the only model that fits that criteria is a >particulate ether which has an operating sink at the center >of the gravitating system. A spiral sink can be shown cause >Keplerian orbits by the orbiting bodies slipping threads >in the spiral inflow. All basic fluid dynamics.
I feel not to burden our theories with too much expectation, too quickly. If we can resolve the issue of the motional components, and show light-speed anisotropy, that's pretty significant all by itself. Gravitation, we hardly understand except to measure its affects. Even the classical theories don't explain gravitation, except perhaps Einstein, but to accept his theory, one has to throw out all the positive ether experiments, and a lot of other research as well.
>That type of model is consistent with the variation of the >speed of light shown by the Sagnac and M/G experiments since >there would be an ether wind that differs slightly by latitude.
Maybe, but there's no reason why this should not also be integrated into the larger conclusions from the Miller/Galaev experiments, as they are all showing similar results. Miller/Galaev does not negate Sagnac nor M/G. It merely adds to their findings.
>In other words, as the ether is moving into the sink, it is >causing the Earth to rotate, but the ether is not rotating >with it, so there is a ether wind at the surface of the Earth. >But the wind would be constant because the inflow is constant. >There would be no sidereal variation, at least none that I >can fathom. But I'm trying to make sure I haven't overlooked >an aspect of the model which could cause a sidereal component.
I would say, the ether moves swiftly along, and having a slight mass (as with the neutrino, or like a "neutrino sea" as Dirac postulated) begins to push matter along. Over eons of time, matter accelerates to roughly average out the ether's possibly variable speed motions. So ether moves faster than the planets, as cosmic prime mover (but is no deity). This was Wilhelm Reich's postulate, and I highly recommend his book "Cosmic Superimposition" and the companion volume "Ether, God and Devil".
>What's interesting, I think, is why there is such a close >coinciding of the solar day and the sidereal day. Is it >the same for the moon? Can you see any reason in the model >I have outlined for there to be a sidereal component?
Actually, Earth has a very poor agreement between solar and sidereal days, one orbital revolution per 365 days, with the sidereal day being 1/365th less than a solar day. Which is why a marker for sidereal day correlations is such a big deal, as compared to something purely solar -- it marks a cosmical factor relative to the background of stars. Neptune and Pluto, which have extremely long periods of orbit, have perhaps the worst correlations between sidereal and solar days. It generally depends upon the length of one year's orbit relative to axial rotation.
James