mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2025 1:14 pm
I am using the data which mainstream science claims to have absolutely disproved the aether and proved special relativity.
well, there's your problem. I would hope most anyone on this site would already know not to trust relativists propaganda.
I really don't understand why you are attempting to debate this point. I've pointed you numerous times already to DeMeo's book. He has an entire chapter titled "The
positive results of the MM experiment" with photos, diagrams, history, etc. You should read it, then come back and report that you either are in agreement, or disagree because <reasons>.
As they say, one can lead a horse to water, but one can't force it to drink.
Here's a little more water for you, typed verbatim from the book:
While secondhand reports of the MM 1887 experiment repeatedly claimed it produced "no results" or a "null" or "zero" effect, this was never the case! In their final report on the results of their experiment, titled "On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether" and published in the 1887 issue of the American Journal of Science, MM stated:
"... the displacement [of interference fringes] to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than a twentieth part of this [0.02 fringe] and probably less than the fortieth part [0.01 fringe]. ... the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth".
With the Earth's orbital velocity at around 30km/sec, that one-sixth or one-fourth fraction of what was to be expected would place the measured ether wind maximum at something approaching or between 5 to 7.5 km/sec.
The book explains that MM then go on mention that the result would likely be different if the solar systems motion was taken into account, or seasonal variations, and that the experiment would be repeated at 3 month intervals. but they never repeated it.
Being aware of Fresnel and Stokes arguments about a partially or fully entrained ether, or ether drag effect, they also stated:
"It is obvious from what has gone before that it would be hopeless to attempt to solve the question of the motion of the solar system by observations of optical phenomena at the surface of the earth. But it is not impossible that even at moderate distances above sea-level, at the top of an isolated mountain peak, for instance, the relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used in these experiments. Perhaps if the experiment should ever be tried in these circumstances, the cover should be of glass, or should be removed".
One may quibble about the "probably less than one fortieth" qualifier in the MM paper. But then consider that
Dayton Miller, an associate of MM at Case
examined MM raw data from the experiment and calculated:
an average ether-drift velocity of around 8.4 km/sec. Miller's recalculated velocity was in close agreement with the 10-11 km/sec max ether velocity he would systematically document some 30 years later using a more robust experimental protocol and a more sensitive interferometer with an even longer light path. Miller also took his instrument high up on Mount Wilson and ran the experiment over 4 seasonal epochs, in a hut with open windows and glass covers at the level of the light path, just as MM had stated necessary in their 1887 paper. Miller detected an ether-drift signal more clearly and definitively than anyone before or since.
note: the book provides graphs of Miller's review of MM data. It varies by time and I can see with my own eyes it is not "null".
In later chapters the book documents that Einstein acknowledged Miller's mountain-top experimental results and wrote that if they were correct, relativity was falsified. After Miller's death Einstein supporters performed a hatchet job on Miller's work. Mainstream sources today just ignore Miller's work entirely, and so you've probably never heard of him, except on this site.
read the book. study miller's papers if you like. then let's continue discussion.