The fundamental error of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Special relativity is wrong.

[ForumModerator]

So all these relative scientists are ignorant fools, including Michelson and Einstein and Demjeanov and whoever tries to prove or disprove aether this way. They are complete and utter idiots.

mariuslvasile,
There is no good reason for this type of ad hominem attack. It does not in any way support your position. It is simply name calling. Personal attacks are (even in this case, of historical characters) unnecessary. The rule of thumb is to attack ideas, and remember that just because someone puts forth a wrong idea, it does not necessarily reflect upon their level of intelligence.
Science progresses by observations/evidence that falsifies theories, not by immature name calling.

[crawler]

So if you swim in a pool, do you expect that the speed of propagation of the waves will depend on how fast you are swimming ?! That is ridiculous, and only shows that you know nothing about wave propagation. The speed of propagation of the wave only depends on the properties of the medium in which it propagates ! The same goes for sound waves, or light waves !

Does the speed of a sound wave depend on the velocity of the source ?

The speed of a sound wave does not depend on the velocity of the source. The speed of sound is determined by the properties of the medium through which it travels, such as air, water, or a solid material. These properties include temperature, density, and elasticity.

However, the velocity of the source can affect the observed frequency and wavelength of the sound wave due to the Doppler effect. If the source is moving toward the observer, the frequency appears higher (a higher pitch), and if the source is moving away, the frequency appears lower (a lower pitch). But the actual speed of the sound wave in the medium remains constant regardless of the source's motion.

See ? It's exactly as I said in my original post.

So all these relative scientists are ignorant fools, including Michelson and Einstein and Demjeanov and whoever tries to prove or disprove aether this way. They are complete and utter idiots. Maxwell must be twisting in his grave, as his aether theory was rejected by these absolute fools like Einstein, on the basis of absolutely foolish experiments.

I dont see anything wrong re what i wrote.
And i dont see anything wrong re what u wrote, re V of source.
It seems to me that u are missreading my wordages.

[mariuslvasile]

You wrote this:

The speed of sound in air in an open-air lab will of course depend on the velocity of the lab relative to the air, ie the wind.
Much like the aetherwind in an enclosed lab with an MMX.

This is plain wrong, because the speed of sound in air does not depend on the velocity of the lab source relative to the air. It only depends on the state of the air medium.
In the same way that the speed of light only depends on its medium of propagation. It does not depend on the velocity of the source at all. Therefore, any experiment which tries to detect aether based on this asinine assumption is just plain wrong.

[mariuslvasile]

mariuslvasile,
There is no good reason for this type of ad hominem attack. It does not in any way support your position. It is simply name calling. Personal attacks are (even in this case, of historical characters) unnecessary. The rule of thumb is to attack ideas, and remember that just because someone puts forth a wrong idea, it does not necessarily reflect upon their level of intelligence.

It was not an ad hominem attack, because I attacked their ideas first and showed with irrefutable arguments that they are stupid.

''This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument''

SO this is a fallacy only when you are attacking the person instead of their argument or position. But I attacked their argument and position, so its not a fallacy. Instead, it is a logical conclusion which follows from their inability to understand basic classical wave physics, and trying to disprove or prove aether based on an asinine asumption about wave propagation.

But what does it reflect then ? When are people stupid if not when they claim, or do stupid things ? And why did Einstein claim that 'human stupidity is infinite' ? Was he making an ad hominem toward humanity as a whole ? Or just to himself ? Cause in his case he kind of proved it.

Science progresses by observations/evidence that falsifies theories, not by immature name calling.

Well tell that to Tesla, who called Einstein a fuzzy haired crackpot.
Or to Einstein, who said that human stupidity is infinite. I didnt start name calling in science.

Science cant progress if scientists are so stupid though. In fact, it regresses based on their stupid experiments and foolish interpretations. Which is exactly what happened in this case, and many many others like Pound Rebka, Shapiro, Eddington and pretty much all of these relative experiments.

[mariuslvasile]

Name calling or no name calling, the fact is I disproved special relativity in a breeze. In a breeze of the aether wind.

[nick c]

It was not an ad hominem attack, because I attacked their ideas first and showed with irrefutable arguments that they are stupid........

I am with ForumModerator here. It does not matter what is the order of your attack. You made ad hominem attacks. Your ideas do not gain anything by personal attacks, in fact they lose something. The men who put forth these ideas were not idiots or stupid. Maybe they are wrong, but then it is up to you to show that without assaults on their character.

[crawler]

You wrote this:

The speed of sound in air in an open-air lab will of course depend on the velocity of the lab relative to the air, ie the wind.
Much like the aetherwind in an enclosed lab with an MMX.

This is plain wrong, because the speed of sound in air does not depend on the velocity of the lab source relative to the air. It only depends on the state of the air medium.
In the same way that the speed of light only depends on its medium of propagation. It does not depend on the velocity of the source at all. Therefore, any experiment which tries to detect aether based on this asinine assumption is just plain wrong.

I possibly agree with u here. But u mention some things which i did not specify.
The source of the sound (in the open air lab) might be stationary in the lab frame, or knot.
Likewise the source of the photons in the MMX in the lab are usually i suppose from a lantern that is in the lab frame. Alltho i recall that some MMXs did use sunlight.
These things will have an effect on v & V & c etc i suppose.

[danda]

As I said in the OP, the speed of light in aether does not depend on the motion of earth in the aether, just like the speed of sound does not depend on the motion of a source through air.

I agree with you on this point.

Anyone who believes that light is simply a wave in a medium, fundamentally no different from a sound wave in air or water, must I think concur.

Before commenting in any more depth, I will need to find time to review the MM and miller experiments again, and the interferometer design. I thought your observation was taken into account in the theory and experimental design. But if not.... that's troubling indeed.

Let's think about waves for a second. If one is moving in air or water, one can detect the doppler effect, ie that wave frequency is shorter in one direction than the other. So the motion of the observer must be taken into account. That doesn't mean that the wave speed is altered in the medium by the observer's motion through the medium. It only means that the moving observer measures a difference based on their own movement though the medium. My hazy memory is that the interferometer is designed to measure this difference.

anyway, I'm glad to chat with someone thinking about these things. It's important.

[crawler]

As I said in the OP, the speed of light in aether does not depend on the motion of earth in the aether, just like the speed of sound does not depend on the motion of a source through air.

I agree with you on this point.

Anyone who believes that light is simply a wave in a medium, fundamentally no different from a sound wave in air or water, must I think concur.

Before commenting in any more depth, I will need to find time to review the MM and miller experiments again, and the interferometer design. I thought your observation was taken into account in the theory and experimental design. But if not.... that's troubling indeed.

Let's think about waves for a second. If one is moving in air or water, one can detect the doppler effect, ie that wave frequency is shorter in one direction than the other. So the motion of the observer must be taken into account. That doesn't mean that the wave speed is altered in the medium by the observer's motion through the medium. It only means that the moving observer measures a difference based on their own movement though the medium. My hazy memory is that the interferometer is designed to measure this difference.

anyway, I'm glad to chat with someone thinking about these things. It's important.

NO.
Miller in fact used the Earth's orbital V to help him to calibrate his MMX.
Miller estimated the aetherwind to be i think about 280 km/s.
But we know today that the aetherwind can reach at least 480 km/s, depending on time & location.

[danda]

I'm not sure what you are saying NO to. I don't believe your following statements contradict anything I said.

Feel free to quote the specific statement of mine you are disagreeing with and explain why.

[crawler]

I'm not sure what you are saying NO to. I don't believe your following statements contradict anything I said.
Feel free to quote the specific statement of mine you are disagreeing with and explain why.

Here below is your wordage re the posting from mariuslvasile from yesterday (i added the numbers) & my comments (disagreements & explanations) that i offer today.

(1) I agree with you on this point.
(2) Anyone who believes that light is simply a wave in a medium, fundamentally no different from a sound wave in air or water, must I think concur.
..........(My comment) I say that a photon is a (i) quasi-particle with a pseudo-wave. A photon is not a (ii) wave. A photon is not a (iii) particle.

(3) Before commenting in any more depth, I will need to find time to review the MM and miller experiments again, and the interferometer design. (4) I thought your observation was taken into account in the theory and experimental design. (5) But if not.... that's troubling indeed.
..........(My comment) I don’t fully agree. If a photon is a wave then the oldendays MMXs would have worked ok. So too if a photon is a quasi-particle. But oldendays MMXs would probly not have worked if a photon is a particle.

(6) Let's think about waves for a second. (7) If one is moving in air or water, one can detect the doppler effect, (8) ie that wave frequency is shorter in one direction than the other. (9) So the motion of the observer must be taken into account. (10) That doesn't mean that the wave speed is altered in the medium by the observer's motion through the medium. (11) It only means that the moving observer measures a difference based on their own movement though the medium. (12) My hazy memory is that the interferometer is designed to measure this difference.
..........(My comment) I think that i agree. I think that MMM thort that Earth possibly fully dragged aether (full drag), or partially dragged aether (part drag), or that aether did not suffer any kind of drag (zero drag). Re part drag, this might involve full drag re Earth's velocity (full V drag), or zero drag (zero V drag), or partial drag (part V drag). And it might involve full drag re Earth's spin (full S drag), or zero drag (zero S drag), or partial drag (part S drag). So, there must have been many possible combinations early on. Anyhow, there is no need to worry, aether suffers zero drag of any kind (with one little exception that i will not go into today).

(13) anyway, I'm glad to chat with someone thinking about these things. It's important.
..........(My comment) There is no need to think much, & thinking is not very important, koz, all of this MMX stuff has been solved, by V V Demjanov (lots of papers in English), & by Prof Reg Cahill (lots of papers).

[FreddyV]

michelson morley did detect an ether drift. It was just much slower than predicted, so it was declared a "null result" for the prevailing theory of aether at the time (just one of many ether theories). But it was still at least 7km/sec as I recall. Stick your head out the rocket window at 7km/sec and tell me if it feels like a null result.

relativists seized on the "null result" to declare victory for relativity. Which actually depends on a 0km/sec result. So MM falsified relativity more than the ether. But you won't find that on wikipedia, for sure.

Later Dayton Miller repeated MM, but did it with much better equipment, in a much better location, with much more rigor. He detected the ether drift over and over and noted that changes were sidereal, ie corresponding with the stars not the earth or solar system. He was able to calculate the axis of direction of solar system in the galaxy from his measurements, towards Draco iirc. This was in the 1940's. Einstein was aware of Miller's work and even said that if Miller's work accurate, relativity is falsified. After Miller died, one of Einstein's acolytes did a hatchet job on his work and the relativists again claimed victory. onward!

All of this and much more is detailed in "The dynamic ether of cosmological space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science" by James DeMeo PhD. I can't recommend the book enough.

Another fascinating book is "occult ether physics" by William Lyne which goes into detail about Nikola Tesla's understanding of the ether and antigravity designs that he apparently came up with based on his own theory of gravity via ether.

I agree with the OP's basic premise that light is just a wave in a medium and should be thought about and studied like any other wave. ie, it will behave about the same as waves in water, gasses, etc. Wave speed is (mostly) governed by density of the medium. Higher density means higher speed. This means that (a) the ether must be super dense compared to matter at our scale and (b) the density of the ether can be calculated based on the observed speed of light.

I think OP makes an error in saying that MM observed no ether drift, based on a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is just propaganda of the relativists. One needs to read the actual papers, history, etc.

Thanks for the book recommendations! I just ordered the one by James DeMeo.

I’m new here and quite an amateur. However I can’t seem to get enough of these topics these days. And I agree that Wikipedia is little more than propaganda. So I’ve been looking into reading more and finding good sources of information. Thanks again for your recommendations.

[mariuslvasile]

Miller in fact used the Earth's orbital V to help him to calibrate his MMX.
Miller estimated the aetherwind to be i think about 280 km/s.
But we know today that the aetherwind can reach at least 480 km/s, depending on time & location.

As I already explained, there is no aether wind because it is not the aether which is moving, but the earth ! The aether is presumed to be still. Therefore there is no aether wind which can affect the speed of light. If you're on a moving bike and feel a wind that doesnt mean the air medium is moving because the air blows in your face as you speed. It just means that the air is resisting to the bike and your face. This air resistance does not affect the speed of sound in any direction, just the speed of the bike. What's so hard to understand ? Its not rocket science.

[crawler]

Miller in fact used the Earth's orbital V to help him to calibrate his MMX.
Miller estimated the aetherwind to be i think about 280 km/s.
But we know today that the aetherwind can reach at least 480 km/s, depending on time & location.

As I already explained, there is no aether wind because it is not the aether which is moving, but the earth ! The aether is presumed to be still. Therefore there is no aether wind which can affect the speed of light. If a car is moving in air that doesnt mean the air is moving because you feel a wind. It just means the air is resisting to the car. This air resistance does not affect the speed of sound in any direction, just the speed of the car. What's so hard to understand ?

U should read the papers by V V Demjanov who measured an aetherwind of 140 km/s to 480 km/s (in the horizontal) at Obninsk in 1968.
And papers by Prof Reg Cahill who measured aetherwind at Adelaide ( in period 2000 to 2015).
We can assume that the Earth is still or we can assume that the aether is still, none of that matters.

[mariuslvasile]

U should read the papers by V V Demjanov who measured an aetherwind of 140 km/s to 480 km/s (in the horizontal) at Obninsk in 1968.

This guy could probably measure an air wind of 1000 km/h if he was on a plane which is moving with 1000km/h. And an air wind of 700km/h if the plane was moving with 700km/h. But the air itself is still still. Its not going anywhere. And the sound wave does not move faster or slower because the plane is moving faster or slower.

And the orbital speed of the earth does not vary to such degree anyway, so where does that triple aether wind speed come from ?

And papers by Prof Reg Cahill who measured aetherwind at Adelaide ( in period 2000 to 2015).

And he probably measured totally different values than the other guy.

We can assume that the Earth is still or we can assume that the aether is still, none of that matters.

No we can't ! They are not equivalent assumptions. If the earth was still and the aether was moving, that would cause a different measurement of the speed of light in different directions (because it is measured relative to the moving aether). If the earth was moving and the aether is still, then no such variation should be detected or expected. (because it is measured relative to a still aether)

And this is why you come to illogical conclusions, because you assume two situations which are not the same to be the same.