January 16, 2010

  • Question 220 – Bethel's Book on Einstein

    Do you accept that clocks do slow down while in motion and under gravity?  Should I remember what you say about that in the Galileo Was Wrong? 

     

    If that is true, I will have to rethink what I say.  It also seems that Tom is saying that the lowered rate matches the predictions of  relativity.  That seems curious.  I seems strange all physical clocks would be affected the same.

     

    R. Sungenis: Russ, as for your question, yes, I do accept the concept that anything with mechanical moving parts (including the inner mechanisms of a clock) will be retarded in some way when moving against the ether. Otherwise, we would have no explanation of why light is retarded when it moved at right angles in the Michelson-Morley or Michelson-Gale experiments. By the same token, time itself does not slow down, contrary to what Einstein proposed and what Bethel is objecting to. What Bethel calls "gravitational force" as the retarding effect I call ether, since I have written in GWW that gravity is caused by an imbalance in ether between the object and the space surrounding it. One major weakness of Bethel's book (Questioning Einstein) is that he has no physical explanation for gravity, yet he depends on gravity's physical effect to answer all his objections against Einstein. The other problem with Bethel's book is that he keeps referring to Michelson-Morley as giving a "null" result without realizing that it is only "null" if one already assumes that the Earth is revolving around the sun. He also says that Michelson-Gale had a positive result in order to support his theory that the Earth is only rotating against an unentrained ether but revolving in an entrained ether, but he missed the fact that the MG experiment had almost the same positive results as the MM experiment! Bethel missed that completely, and it is obviously because he already started his book under the false premise about the Earth's dual motion. I think the top of page 181 is the most damning part of Bethel's book, because there he quotes Lorentz admitting that if there is an ether effect for the Earth's rotation there should also be an ether effect for the Earth's translation. But Bethel dismisses Lorentz's logic by begging the question, saying "and it is safe to say they never will detect the translational effect. For it isn't there to be seen." Of course, if you already beleive the Earth is translating, then neither MM nor Ashby and Weiss in 1985 will show a significant effect! This is the whole premise behind GWW, that is, the MM effects could only be considered "null" if you were already looking for an Earth moving around the sun at 66,000 mph, but not "null" if you believed the Earth was standing still in space and only affected by the movement of ether against it as the universe rotates around the Earth. Bethel thinks that Beckman's solution of an entrained ether for the Earth's translation and an unentrained ether for the Earth's rotation is the best solution to answer Einstein, but it is merely a convenient manipulation of the experimental facts that Bethel uses to to deny Einstein and not even mention geocentrism as a possibility. (But perhaps Bethel hadn't even thought of a fixed earth as a solution to the problem). I sent Bethel my books and a cordial letter about a month ago, but I haven't gotten a reply from him. I'll let you know if I do.