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

[mariuslvasile]

At least in the case of MM, they got a consistent null result, but these other guys who claim they detected an aether wind they get hugely inconsistent results like 4 times the aether wind in one experiment compared to another. So its clear to me that they are complete bs, and that most likely their interferemeters and experimental setup are not calibrated properly or have serious design flaws.

But anyway here I am debunking the MM experiment, not other similar experiments which frankly I havent even heard of until now. So I dont care that Demjeanov detected some aether wind brainfarts, I care what MM detected and that was a consistent null result.

That null result is in fact consistent with a still aether which was considered by Maxwell as the absolute frame of reference for light and which makes the speed of light invariant in all other frames of reference. Which makes Einstein's SR superflous and obsolete, since Einstein foolishly rejected the aether based on the null result of the MM experiment ! So stop divagating with other bullshit experiments because I have proved that MM experiment is completelly consistent with a still aether and that Einstein's SR theory is wrong ! And that was the scope of this thread, which is clearly about Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's theory, not about other wanna be scientists, who get conflicting results which are in conflict or inconsistent with known physics, because if there was an any aether wind then the speed of light would not be invariant aka constant as it has been proven to be by pretty much all experiments which measure the same speed of light in a vacuum regardless of direction. And which was also inferred from Maxwell's equations, which only work if the aether medium is still.

[danda]

At least in the case of MM, they got a consistent null result

you are repeating a mainstream "consensus" view that is misleading, at best. They got a "small positive result", and they only conducted the experiment for 6 hours over 4 days. Hardly "consistent", or "null".

from: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...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. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)

iirc from Demeo's book, MM's results were calculated to be between 7-11 km/sec. That's still pretty damn fast.

see also:
https://subtle.energy/dr-james-demeo-an ... ic-theory/

mariuslvasile -- you have a bright mind. I really hope you will read Demeo's book and papers on the aether. Or at least the above links. I think it will give you a better understanding of the actual history, rather than the caricature written by the "victors".

[mariuslvasile]

I am using the data which mainstream science claims to have absolutely disproved the aether and proved special relativity.
Which is the mainstream data yes, as presented by wikipedia with references and all, but I am showing that their own accepted data (i.e. the null result) is not in conflict with a still aether.
Because their assumption, that the speed of light should change in different directions depending on the motion of the earth in the aether, is wrong. If the aether is still, then light waves will propagate in all directions at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the earth source in the aether. So the null results are in fact perfectly consistent with a still aether, which in classical physics is the absolute frame of reference for light waves.

And if the mainstream data is wrong and it was not a null result and there is a variance in the speed of light depending on direction, then it simply means that classical physics were wrong and the aether is not still. It does not mean that it does not exist.

But this experiment was not even done in a vacuum, but in the earth's atmosphere, which is not still, so if there were any variances they could simply be from the air medium, and not from the aether medium.

[mariuslvasile]

the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...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. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)

And Lorentz did not read their paper ? Why did he go to such length as to invent length contraction in order to 'explain' the null result of MM experiment, if there was no such result ?! It is clear that all notable 'scientists' at the time were convinced that the experiment gave a null result, and where perplexed by this null result, because they were all expecting a positive result (due to assinine assumptions). So I dont know how reliable the source you quote is. On wikipedia there is no such mention of 'slight positive result', only 'null result'.

A first step to explaining the Michelson and Morley experiment's null result was found in the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis, now simply called length contraction or Lorentz contraction, first proposed by George FitzGerald (1889) in a letter to same journal that published the Michelson-Morley paper, as "almost the only hypothesis that can reconcile" the apparent contradictions. It was independently also proposed by Hendrik Lorentz (1892).[A 19] According to this law all objects physically contract by 𝐿/𝛾 along the line of motion (originally thought to be relative to the aether), 𝛾=1/1−𝑣2/𝑐2 being the Lorentz factor.

And the only positive result that is mentioned is related to Miller's experiments, not Michelson's.

[danda]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

I just said in my previous post that on wikipedia article of MM experiment it says that Miller got positive results.

But it is irrelevant what Miller got and how, because Miller is not MM and here I am talking about MM experiment. Which is claimed to have disproved aether by mainstream science because it measured the same speed of light in all directions, which they say is not what aether theory predicted. It is EXACTLY what aether theory predicted ! It's their completely insane interpretation of it which predicted a variance, due to some immaginary aether wind which they brainfarted for no reason.

It is clear that if aether is still then there is no aether wind blowing in any direction. That is why the speed of light is the same in any direction. But they expected a variance due to this 'aether wind', which simply doesn't exist in classical physics, where aether is STILL.

So if they inserted v=0 for 'aether wind' they would have got the same speed of light c in all directions ! It's as simple as that !!

Aether dragging is not the same as an aether wind, and if it exists it could account for slight variations in MM experiment. But we should not confuse the two, as some pseudo-scientists do. Drag is caused by air resistance, or aether resistance in this case, but as Fresnel has proved there is no aether dragging whatsoever in air or gases.

Also, Fresnel's experiment can be explained by Doppler effect, as I have done, because the water acts as a moving source and can cause light waves to be redshifted or blueshifted depending on the direction of water flow. And Fresnel didn't know about the Doppler effect because it was discovered after he died. So I think we should take Fresnel's aether drag exp with a grain of salt.

[danda]

But it is irrelevant what Miller got and how, because Miller is not MM and here I am talking about MM experiment.

Miller's work can be divided into parts:

1. Reviewing MM experiment in 1887 and making graphs and calculations from the raw data, showing 8.4 km/sec avg "wind".
2. Performing his own experiment 30 years later on Mt. Wilson.

I just want to make sure that point is clear because you say "Miller is not MM", but he did contribute peer review for those results.

Which is claimed to have disproved aether by mainstream science because it measured the same speed of light in all directions, which they say is not what aether theory predicted. It is EXACTLY what aether theory predicted ! It's their completely insane interpretation of it which predicted a variance, due to some immaginary aether wind which they brainfarted for no reason.

It's true they seem to have declared victory over a particular aether theory as if it were the only one, when more than one theory existed at the time, and since.

It is clear that if aether is still then there is no aether wind blowing in any direction. That is why the speed of light is the same in any direction. But they expected a variance due to this 'aether wind', which simply doesn't exist in classical physics, where aether is STILL.

So if they inserted v=0 for 'aether wind' they would have got the same speed of light c in all directions ! It's as simple as that !!

Aether dragging is not the same as an aether wind, and if it exists it could account for slight variations in MM experiment. But we should not confuse the two, as some pseudo-scientists do. Drag is caused by air resistance, or aether resistance in this case, but as Fresnel has proved there is no aether dragging whatsoever in air or gases.

Also, Fresnel's experiment can be explained by Doppler effect, as I have done, because the water acts as a moving source and can cause light waves to be redshifted or blueshifted depending on the direction of water flow. And Fresnel didn't know about the Doppler effect because it was discovered after he died. So I think we should take Fresnel's aether drag exp with a grain of salt.

you may be right with these points. I am not yet at a point where I can agree or disagree. Before that I need to read up again on MM to understand clearly the design of the interferometer and exactly what their logic was, how they interpreted the light fringes, etc. DeMeo goes into great detail about it, but I skipped over all that detail before to find the quotes related to a positive result.

My starting intuition is that they expected to measure a difference in the light travel times that matches the speed of the earth + solar system moving through space. The way I envision their experiment, it is like sitting on a flatbed train car travelling at 50 mph and throwing a ball against the wall of the train car in front of you (10 feet) and behind you (also 10 feet) and also strait up to a small roof also 10 feet. The speed of the ball through the medium (air) is always the same, but the roundtrip time taken for each of the 3 will (I think) vary, due to movement of the train through the relatively still air. (except I think the interferometer does not measure up, forward, back, but only up and one of forward or back).

[galaxy12]

I can think of a couple of experiments to prove/disprove the existence of a particle-based ether. If I felt there were any scientists that actually wanted to find out the truth, I would be glad to help. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

[crawler]

I can think of a couple of experiments to prove/disprove the existence of a particle-based ether. If I felt there were any scientists that actually wanted to find out the truth, I would be glad to help. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

The oldendays aether was i think supposed to be sub-particle, ie sub-quantum.
What kind of X would support a particle-based aether?
Would this PBAe be lumeniferous?
Would it be electriferous?
Would it be magnetiferous?
Would it be gravitiferous?

[danda]

I propose that the aether is essentially continuous. It is the sum of matter at all infinite scales beneath the present scale. And our matter (stars, planets, etc) contributes to aether at a higher scale.

I believe this is the only explanation compatible with an aristotelian view that matter is infinitely divisible and continuous. It can be called an "infinite, fractal universe" model.

In this view, matter is similar or even identical at smaller and higher scales. ie what we refer to as "atomic" scale may simply be n-1 in terms of scale, and "solid matter" at that scale would exist suspended in an aether at scale n-1.

In this sense then, there may be an infinite number of aether levels. And it could be that we experience some aetheric effects, eg electricity for aether level 1 (ours) and other effects, perhaps gravity and "quantum entanglement" from aether n - 1, or below. Each observed phenomena are simply wave actions, but they occur much faster at lower levels of scale because smaller matter moves faster. Eg light speed represents wave speed in our aether (n=1) but gravity waves may be occurring in n-1, quantum entanglement in n-2, etc, so such effects appear "instant" or "unmeasurably fast" to us.

It is helpful to understand that two objects vibrating in a fluid medium (eg water) attract or repel eachother depending on phase. This can then explain magnetism, gravity, etc. Just apply the same principle in different fluid densities.

[tharkun]

I can think of a couple of experiments to prove/disprove the existence of a particle-based ether. If I felt there were any scientists that actually wanted to find out the truth, I would be glad to help. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Please elaborate. I tend to agree with the Mathis model that photons are the fundamental quanta and create the aether 'field'. What experiments disprove a particle-based aether?