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

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[crawler]

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).

Whether (E) the Earth is considered to be still or (A) the aether is considered to be still, the aetherwind blowing throo the lab is the same km/s in both.
The apparent (ie measured) speed of light would as u say be different in different directions if Earth was considered still (E).
But the measured speed would also be different in different directions if the aether was ignored in the theory. And the km/s would be identical in (E) & (A).

& the actual speed of light would be the same in both.

Yes, if the actual speed of light is given relative to the aether. The speed of light is always c relative to the aether, but is never c relative to Earth.

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)

There is no variation if the speed is calculated relative to a still aether. But u use the word measured, which is ambiguous.

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

My conclusions are all logical & correct based on all of the evidence that i have ever seen.

[mariuslvasile]

Whether (E) the Earth is considered to be still or (A) the aether is considered to be still, the aetherwind blowing throo the lab is the same km/s in both.

No it is not, because there is no aether wind if the aether is still. I dont understand why you keep making this illogical claim over and over again. A wind is only generated when the medium is moving, not when the medium is still.

If you're on a bike and the air is blowing in your face, that is NOT a wind. Its air resistance ! Which only affects the speed of the bike, not the speed of sound. How many times do I need to explain this simple and obvious fact ?

And all these so called physicists don't seem to get it either.

[crawler]

Whether (E) the Earth is considered to be still or (A) the aether is considered to be still, the aetherwind blowing throo the lab is the same km/s in both.

No it is not, because there is no aether wind if the aether is still. I dont understand why you keep making this illogical claim over and over again. A wind is only generated when the medium is moving, not when the medium is still.

If you're on a bike and the air is blowing in your face, that is NOT a wind. Its air resistance ! Which only affects the speed of the bike, not the speed of sound. How many times do I need to explain this simple and obvious fact ?

And all these so called physicists don't seem to get it either.

The background aetherwind blows south to north throo Earth at 500 km/s.
All possible math will give the correct answers for all possible questions no matter what frame is used for calculations.
We can assume that Earth moovs throo a stationary aether, or that the aether blows throo a stationary Earth, or anything in between. All frames give the same numbers, if done properly.

[mariuslvasile]

No one can do pseudo-science properly. A wind implies the medium is moving, and it is illogical to claim that a medium moving by a still object is the same with a moving object in a still medium ! In the first case, there is a wind, in the second case, thre is no wind, because the medium is still !

A train moving with 200kmh does not generate a 200kmh wind.
And you cant consider the train static because you know the train is moving. It is not the whole medium moving with 200kmh relative to a static train !

So it is not equivalent with a 200kmh wind blowing in a stationary train, and it does not change the speed of sound in any direction, like a real wind does. This is pure pseudo science. You keep persisting in this mistake and Im tired of explaining why its illogical and unscientific to do so.

[crawler]

No one can do pseudo-science properly. A wind implies the medium is moving, and it is illogical to claim that a medium moving by a still object is the same with a moving object in a still medium ! In the first case, there is a wind, in the second case, thre is no wind, because the medium is still !

A train moving with 200kmh does not generate a 200kmh wind.
And you cant consider the train static because you know the train is moving. It is not the whole medium moving with 200kmh relative to a static train !

So it is not equivalent with a 200kmh wind blowing in a stationary train, and it does not change the speed of sound in any direction, like a real wind does. This is pure pseudo science. You keep persisting in this mistake and Im tired of explaining why its illogical and unscientific to do so.

I think that i see the problem.
There is no such thing as absolute motion. So, in that sense i (& i think u) was wrong.
I was saying that absolute motion exists, & that it is relative to the aetherwind, ie the aetherwind is zero km/s in the absolute aether frame.
But, the this form of absolute frame (relative to the aether)(where the aetherwind is zero km/s) is not really a proper absolute frame,
koz there is no such thing as an absolute frame.
All frame are (must be) relative to something.
There can be no other.

Your train has an (almost) infinite number of speeds/velocities in an (almost) infinite number of frames.

[danda]

some points I think are relevant here:

1. the entire universe (probably infinite in extent) can be considered an "absolute frame", although it's probably impossible to determine relative motion within it for any local frame because the entire universe can never be observed. Also, even our galaxy or even our entire observable universe may be considered just an infinitesimal portion of an infinite universe, and may be moving within it. So for practical purposes: I would agree that we should only be considering relative frames, although "to us" the aether's frame may appear quite absolute, at least for intergalactic space.

2. The aether is surely dynamic, not static. Nowhere in nature do we observe any medium, or anything at all, that is truly static. Everything is constantly in motion, and all systems are open systems. This probably means that the aether has currents and vortexes much like the ocean or like an atmosphere. Indeed, in DeMeo's book he describes gravity as deriving from aetheric vortex rotation, with the earth existing in a vortex and the Sun in a larger vortex. The galaxy is likely a larger vortex yet.

3. DeMeo talks about a dragged aether. The idea here is that the aether interacts with matter, and indeed is spinning the earth. So as measured on the earth, the aether's speed may not be very high relative to the earth, which is being drug along with it. But this can vary by location, eg may be different at the poles. It would also be quite different in interplanetary space, and different yet in interstellar space.

[crawler]

some points I think are relevant here:

1. the entire universe (probably infinite in extent) can be considered an "absolute frame", although it's probably impossible to determine relative motion within it for any local frame because the entire universe can never be observed. Also, even our galaxy or even our entire observable universe may be considered just an infinitesimal portion of an infinite universe, and may be moving within it. So for practical purposes: I would agree that we should only be considering relative frames, although "to us" the aether's frame may appear quite absolute, at least for intergalactic space.

2. The aether is surely dynamic, not static. Nowhere in nature do we observe any medium, or anything at all, that is truly static. Everything is constantly in motion, and all systems are open systems. This probably means that the aether has currents and vortexes much like the ocean or like an atmosphere. Indeed, in DeMeo's book he describes gravity as deriving from aetheric vortex rotation, with the earth existing in a vortex and the Sun in a larger vortex. The galaxy is likely a larger vortex yet.

3. DeMeo talks about a dragged aether. The idea here is that the aether interacts with matter, and indeed is spinning the earth. So as measured on the earth, the aether's speed may not be very high relative to the earth, which is being drug along with it. But this can vary by location, eg may be different at the poles. It would also be quite different in interplanetary space, and different yet in interstellar space.

Conrad Ranzan (website)(lots of papers & books) explains that we have an eternal infinite dynamic steady state cellular universe, based on aether.
All other theories are third rate.

[danda]

My personal theory is that everything is infinite in all dimensions, including scale. Matter is infinitely divisible, so there is no smallest or largest. Our aether is merely the sum of all the smaller aethers at lower (and much faster) scales, and our macros objects such as stars and galaxies compose the aether at a higher (and much slower) scale. matter is a high-energy state of aether.

If matter is not infinitely divisible, then one must answer very hard questions such as what is the smallest unit of matter; what exists between the smallest units; how they can move at all if sandwiched together, and so on. These questions apply to most any conceivable universe.

There has been some formal work in this area. Most notably by the Russian Physicist Sergey Fedosin. And I'm working on a kind of informal "natural philosopher" treatise.

anyway though I'm always happy to learn other's perspectives on the aether, so thank-you for the reference to Conrad Ranzan. I plan to order his book(s).

[crawler]

If matter is not infinitely divisible, then one must answer very hard questions such as what is the smallest unit of matter; what exists between the smallest units; how they can move at all if sandwiched together, and so on. These questions apply to most any conceivable universe.

We have praether, which makes aether, which makes photons, which make particles, which make atoms, etc.

[galaxy12]

I looked into the Michelson-Morley experiment at this website:

https://www.sciencefacts.net/Michelson- ... iment.html

I do not understand how this was supposed to reveal the presence of the "ether." If "ether" particles were flowing in one direction or another, it would seem the speed of light would increase in one direction and decrease in the opposite direction. The Michelson-Morley experiment appears to be measuring round-trip light that has traveled in one direction and then back in the opposite direction and compares this light with a perpendicular measurement of round-trip light. Would this round-trip light measurement not cancel out the effect of the hypothetical "ether"?? Maybe I am misunderstanding this experiment so someone can correct me if they understand it better.

[crawler]

I looked into the Michelson-Morley experiment at this website:

https://www.sciencefacts.net/Michelson- ... iment.html

I do not understand how this was supposed to reveal the presence of the "ether." If "ether" particles were flowing in one direction or another, it would seem the speed of light would increase in one direction and decrease in the opposite direction. The Michelson-Morley experiment appears to be measuring round-trip light that has traveled in one direction and then back in the opposite direction and compares this light with a perpendicular measurement of round-trip light. Would this round-trip light measurement not cancel out the effect of the hypothetical "ether"?? Maybe I am misunderstanding this experiment so someone can correct me if they understand it better.

Have a read of papers by Prof Reg Cahill. He explains the correct working & calibration of the oldendays MMXs.
Also read papers by V V Demjanov, who used a twin media MMX.
And there are many other heroes.
However, only me myself knows the full story of the MMX saga.

[mariuslvasile]

The experiment is conceptually stupid. It is based on an illogical 'aether wind', or apparent aether wind, which makes no sense since the aether was presumed to be still. So they imagine this 'apparent aether wind' , and based on this brain fart they expect a real change in the speed of light in different directions, as to that generated by a real wind, where the medium is not still. This is complete and utter non-sense, and pseudo-science. It is by far the most idiotic and non-scientific experiment ever made.

And those who say that aether is not still should teach Maxwell a lesson.

Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics (see Galilean relativity), the aether was hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell's equations hold. That is, the aether must be "still" universally, otherwise c would vary along with any variations that might occur in its supportive medium.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

So the original assumption of the MM experiment was that aether was still. Based on that assumption, there should not be any change in the speed of light in different directions. But they expected to be, because they were brain farting aether winds.

[crawler]

The experiment is conceptually stupid. It is based on an illogical 'aether wind', or apparent aether wind, which makes no sense since the aether was presumed to be still. So they imagine this 'apparent aether wind' , and based on this brain fart they expect a real change in the speed of light in different directions, as to that generated by a real wind, where the medium is not still. This is complete and utter non-sense, and pseudo-science. It is by far the most idiotic and non-scientific experiment ever made.

And those who say that aether is not still should teach Maxwell a lesson.

Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics (see Galilean relativity), the aether was hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell's equations hold. That is, the aether must be "still" universally, otherwise c would vary along with any variations that might occur in its supportive medium.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

So the original assumption of the MM experiment was that aether was still. Based on that assumption, there should not be any change in the speed of light in different directions. But they expected to be, because they were brain farting aether winds.

u are wrong in every way.
And, re Maxwell, he was wrong, or at least our interpretation of Maxwell was/is wrong.
Firstly, there is no such thing as an EH by EH by EH rolling waves. Hertz was wrong.
And, all oldendays MMXs saw aetherwind, if the MMX had no bugs.

[mariuslvasile]

u are wrong in every way

In what way am I wrong ? You have no arguments really.
The MM experiment presumed the aether is still, as that is what classical maxwellian physics presumed or postulated. In that framework it is absurd to expect any 'aether wind', generated by the movement of the earth in the still aether. Because the aether still remains still, no matter how fast the earth is moving (especially since aether unlike air is able to permeate all matter, i.e. it does not resist to matter). And a light wave emmited from earth will have the same speed in all directions because the aether is still, and its speed of propagation only depends on the state of the medium, not of the source.

re Maxwell he was also wrong

Maybe he was, but I really doubt you understand aether better than him.

And, all oldendays MMXs saw aetherwind, if the MMX had no bugs.

Except they didn't. Cause they were made by Bugs Bunny. Down the rabbit hole.

What 'bugs' are you reffering to ? The experiment was not done by a computer so that it can have bugs. Or you mean technical issues in the interferometer itself ?
And why cant the recent ones which claim detected an 'aether wind' cant be accused of having similar 'bugs' ?
In the end, how can one know which experiment is done with bugs and which one is done without bugs ? Seems like a matter of picking and choosing the one which is convenient for us. I pick none, because they're all rubbish. Pure junk science.

Repeatability and reproducibility are key factors in science. If the MM experiment cannot be repeated or reproduced as it gives vastly different results depending on who's making it then it is not a scientific experiment. Because it lacks repeatability and reproducibility, and every 'scientist' who makes it gets a different result. And even for the same scientist the variations are huge, like 4 times or more that just shows its complete bs.

Conrad Ranzan (website)(lots of papers & books) explains that we have an eternal infinite dynamic steady state cellular universe, based on aether.
All other theories are third rate.

Ranzan's cellular universe theory, which you claim is the real shit, is based on general relativity which is real crap as you say. How can a theory based on a crap theory be true ? You make absoutely no sense. Ranzan bases all his theory on Einstein's crap theory and his crappy cosmoillogical constant- which even Einstein admited it was pure crap. And then you come and say Ranzan's theory is the best ever. That is cognitive dissonance man.