Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

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

Marius L. Vasile

wikipedia wrote:The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the luminiferous aether,[A 1] a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves.

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter, including their laboratory, through the luminiferous aether, or "aether wind" as it was sometimes called. The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against some aether theories, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out motion against an aether.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels ... experiment


So the whole experiment is based on the premise that if the earth is moving through a stationary aether than the speed of light should change depending on the direction in which earth is moving. This is a completelly false and misleading assumption, which shows that these relative scientists really have no ideea how waves propagate in a medium.

If light is a wave, you can't add the velocity of the wave to that of the source, as these relative scientists expected. It will still travel with the speed of light regardless how fast or slow the source is moving relative to the aether medium. Just like a sound wave does. The speed of sound does not increase if the speed of the source increases relative to the air medium.

If a speeding train horns while it passes a station, the people on the station dont measure an increased speed of sound of the horn. What they measure is a an increased or decreased frequency (and wavelength) due to the Doppler effect. The speed is exactly the same.

Michelson Morrey experiment makes the false assumption that because the earth is moving, the speed of light should somehow be different in the earth’s direction of movement compared to a perpendicular direction. This is completelly false if light is a wave in a stationary aether, which was the main assumption of the experiment. It will travel at exactly the same speed regardless of the speed or orientation of the source. So there will be no change in the speed of light in either direction. Which is exactly what they seen: no difference. How does that disprove that aether exists ?! It is completelly illogical to draw this conclusion, yet here we have dozens of the worlds brightest scientists, many Nobel laureates, behaving like utter and complete fools who make the most illogical assumption and then based on it misinterpret their experiments in exactly the opposite way in which they should be interpretated.

What is truly incredible is that no one has seen their fundamental error before, including the greatest minds of science like ...none, and that this stupid experiment is considered for more than a century by all these relative scientists as the ultimate proof that aether does not exist. When it should have been obvious for anyone who knows basic wave physics that  Michelson Morley made a fundamental error in the very premise of the experiment, which could only lead to an erroneus conclusion.

The reason why the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference is because the medium of light, aether, is the only frame of reference for light waves, and the speed of light simply does not depend to any other frames. The speed of light only depends to ITS MEDIUM, which is the AETHER, and light only moves relative to its own fixed frame of reference. That’s why an observer will always measure the speed of light waves in a 'vacuum' which is aether to be the same, regardless if he is on a rocket or on a planet.

And no, a source moving through a static medium is not the same as a medium moving though a static source. This is just illogical equivalency. If a boat moves through a static sea, its not the same as if the whole sea was moving through a static boat. All these relative scientists who think like this are simply illogical and prove once more than Einstein was right...when he said that human stupidity is infinite.

https://vasileffect.blogspot.com/2024/1 ... t.html?m=1

wikipedia wrote:Time dilation can be inferred from the observed constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames dictated by the second postulate of special relativity. This constancy of the speed of light means that, counter to intuition, the speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear greater by moving towards or away from the light source.'

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

The speeds of material objects and sounds waves are not additive either. Because the speed of the sound wave only depends on the properties of the medium. It does not depend on the properties of the source. A moving source will only change the perceived frequency and wavelength of a sound wave due to the Doppler effect. It is not possible to make the speed of sound appear greater by moving towards and away the sound source. The frequency yes, but not the speed. So what are these relative scientists arguing here ? That because the speed of light does not increase with the speed of the source, Einstein's theory is right ? They are clearly confused and do not understand how waves propagate in a medium.

NASA wrote:The speed of transmission of the sound remains a constant regardless of the frequency or the wavelength. The speed of sound only depends on the state of the air (or gas) not on the characteristics of the generating source.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/doppler.html

Even the relative scientists from NASA understand that the speed of sound waves remains a constant regardless of the movement of the source or observer (which only affects frequency due to Doppler effect), because it only depends on the medium. But they can't apply the same basic principle of wave propagation to light waves and aether, because they are absolutely stupid. Just like Einstein and all relative scientists are.

Who interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment in the most foolish way possible, based on their foolish assumption or 'intuition' that the speed of the light wave should change depending on the movement of the earth source through the aether. And foolishly concluded that if there was no such change detected experimentally, then the medium of light waves did not exist.

V V Demjanov measured the aetherwind at Obninsk in 1968-1974. He wrote many papers.
Prof Reg Cahill explained oldendays MMXs in about 2001 (Michelson's calibration was faulty), & Cahill measured the aetherwind at Adelaide. He wrote many papers.

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 10:55 pm V V Demjanov measured the aetherwind at Obninsk in 1968-1974. He wrote many papers.
Prof Reg Cahill explained oldendays MMXs in about 2001 (Michelson's calibration was faulty), & Cahill measured the aetherwind at Adelaide. He wrote many papers.

What 'aether wind' ? The aether was assumed to be static. The fact that the earth is moving though the aether does not equal to aether is moving through the earth. The analogy with air wind is illogical and cannot be applied here because in the case of airwind the air medium is actually moving. And no, if you move an object through air with a certain speed you dont detect an 'air wind'. You detect 'air resistance'. Not the same thing. In the case of aether, no such resistance should be detected because it simply goes through matter.

All these 'scientists' who try to detect the 'aether wind' by measuring the speed of light compared to some immaginary aether wind are illogical pseudo-scientists who dont understand basic wave physics. The speed of a sound wave does not add or substract with that of an immaginary wind caused because the source moves in the air medium, never. It is always the same, as long as the medium is the same ! They are completelly idiotic.

Einstein wrote many papers too. And they're all wrong. Just cause someone writes many papers does not show he is right. It only shows he knows to write !

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 12:30 pm

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 10:55 pm V V Demjanov measured the aetherwind at Obninsk in 1968-1974. He wrote many papers.
Prof Reg Cahill explained oldendays MMXs in about 2001 (Michelson's calibration was faulty), & Cahill measured the aetherwind at Adelaide. He wrote many papers.

What 'aether wind' ? The aether was assumed to be static. The fact that the earth is moving though the aether does not equal to aether is moving through the earth. The analogy with air wind is illogical and cannot be applied here because in the case of airwind the air medium is actually moving. And no, if you move an object through air with a certain speed you dont detect an 'air wind'. You detect 'air resistance'. Not the same thing. In the case of aether, no such resistance should be detected because it simply goes through matter.

All these 'scientists' who try to detect the 'aether wind' by measuring the speed of light compared to some immaginary aether wind are illogical pseudo-scientists who dont understand basic wave physics. The speed of a sound wave does not add or substract with that of an immaginary wind caused because the source moves in the air medium, never. It is always the same, as long as the medium is the same ! They are completelly idiotic.

Einstein wrote many papers too. And they're all wrong. Just cause someone writes many papers does not show he is right. It only shows he knows to write !

I suggest that u read VV Demjanov, & Prof Reg Cahill.

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.

danda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 5:11 am 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.

I think that Miller used the same krappy equipment used by Michelson.
The main fault was the sloppy central pin. And the top heavy mass.
Neither Michelson nor Miller (nor Hicks) were able to explain their "drift of zero" (Demjanov) also called "compensation" for "incline" (Miller) or "Linear Non Periodic Ever Growing Fringe Shift" (myself).

Michelson ended by making & using an even worse piece of equipment, ie even more top heavy, & still with a sloppy pin.

I hadn't heard that criticism before about a sloppy pin . got a source?

My recollection from Demeo's book was that Miller built a much larger apparatus, paid much more attention to detail, operated on a mountain top under glass (instead of in a basement under concrete like MM), took regular observations for months (rather than hours), and generally was a lot more "scientific" about the whole thing.

That doesn't negate that his "central pin" on the wheel might not have been similar (if he even used a pin), but I believe its demonstrable it was not "the same equipment". I recall great care was taken with the apparatus, such as floating it on a bed of liquid mercury, controlling for temperature and many effects. A sloppy central pin seems highly improbable. I guess I was under the impression that the rotating platform was entirely free-floating.

regardless logic tells us that since he was able to measure effects that varied with the sidereal day and that he was able to calculate the solar system's axis of travel in the galaxy -- he must have been detecting something real, not randomness based on a loose pin.

or so it seems to me.

note also that Demeo went through Miller's raw measurements data and corrected one or more errors in his calculations which iirc enabled Demeo to obtain the correct direction of travel of the solar system, not only the axis. But it's been a long time... see demeo's book for details.

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. It only depends on the state of the aether, and air respectively ! And therefore the whole premise of the MM experiment, that speed of light should change depending on the motion of the source in the aether, was wrong. Its a completelly illogical premise, and any conclusion based on it is also illogical.

Moreover, I think that the design of the interferrometer itself is flawed. Because a good portion of the light which reflects into the mirror after its reflected by the beam splitter's mirror, will be reflected back into the source by the latter, and not pass entirely through the beam splitter after it gets reflected by the mirror. So the source will always be emitting against a similar light beam which is reflected into it.

In the Britannica illustration, it kinds of shows this happening, but for some reason they make it look like the reflected beam is offset and goes below the source. I just dont understand where that offset comes from, if the position of the mirrors remains the same. The light should be reflected back on the same path, right back into the source.

danda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 6:26 am I hadn't heard that criticism before about a sloppy pin . got a source?

My recollection from Demeo's book was that Miller built a much larger apparatus, paid much more attention to detail, operated on a mountain top under glass (instead of in a basement under concrete like MM), took regular observations for months (rather than hours), and generally was a lot more "scientific" about the whole thing.

That doesn't negate that his "central pin" on the wheel might not have been similar (if he even used a pin), but I believe its demonstrable it was not "the same equipment". I recall great care was taken with the apparatus, such as floating it on a bed of liquid mercury, controlling for temperature and many effects. A sloppy central pin seems highly improbable. I guess I was under the impression that the rotating platform was entirely free-floating.

regardless logic tells us that since he was able to measure effects that varied with the sidereal day and that he was able to calculate the solar system's axis of travel in the galaxy -- he must have been detecting something real, not randomness based on a loose pin.

or so it seems to me.

note also that Demeo went through Miller's raw measurements data and corrected one or more errors in his calculations which iirc enabled Demeo to obtain the correct direction of travel of the solar system, not only the axis. But it's been a long time... see demeo's book for details.

I am searching my files. I see that Miller wrote..........
...................An appropriation from the Rumford Fund of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences made possible the construction, in 1904, of an entirely new apparatus of steel. The design for the base of the interferometer, made by Professor F. H. Neff of the Department of Civil Engineering of Case School of Applied Science, provided that all optical parts and accessories should be carried by two girders of structural steel, Figs. 5, 10 and 14, each about 430 centimeters long, which intersect in the form of a cross. The purpose of this design was to secure structural symmetry and the utmost rigidity. The steel cross rests on a circular float of wood, Fig. 5, 150 centimeters in diameter; on the under Fig. 5. Cross section of the mercury float for the interferometer. side of the circle is an annulus of wood having an outside diameter of 150 centimeters, an inside diameter of 80 centimeters, and a thickness of 20 centimeters. This float of wood rests on mercury contained in an annular trough of cast iron, of such dimensions as to leave a clearance of about one centimeter around the wood, which space is filled with mercury. It requires about 275 kilograms of mercury to float the entire apparatus which weighs about 1200 kilograms. The float is kept central by a loose-fitting centering pin which sustains no pressure. The annular iron tank is supported by piers of brick or concrete at such a height as to bring the eyepiece of the observing telescope level with the eye of the observer when he takes the posture for easy walking around with the interferometer as it rotates slowly on the mercury. The cast iron trough for the mercury together with the circular wooden float are the same parts as were used in the original Michelson-Morley interferometer of 1887 and these two pieces have been continued in use by the writer to the present time. The other parts of the apparatus of 1887 have been dispersed, excepting only three of the cast iron supports for the mirrors. The optical flat surfaces were all made in 1902 by that artist-optician, O. L. Petitdidier of Chicago, and proved to be exceptionally perfect; these consist of two plane-parallel plates, each 10.5 × 17.5 centimeters in size, and sixteen plane mirrors of circular shape, 10.25 centimeters in diameter. The general plan of the interferometer is shown in the diagram, Fig. 6, which, however, is not drawn to the exact scale. On a central plate..................

DeMeo wrote..........
................Especially between 1922-1924, Miller's control experiments were most rigorous, aimed at addressing the criticisms he had received following the earlier work, to make the apparatus as sensitive as possible only to ether-drift. A special interferometer of aluminum and brass was constructed, to guard against the possible effects of magnetoconstriction (the measured periodic ether-drifting was the same as with the original iron interferometer). Procedures were made to judge the effects of mechanical vibration — such as using a loose or tight centering pin. Bases made of wood, metal or concrete were floated in the mercury tank, to judge and correct for the effects of strain and deformation. The apparatus was not touched when operating, but rather gently pulled in a circle by a thin string, slowly accelerated to the desired velocity of rotation while floating in the mercury tank. Different light sources were tried, mounted on different locations on the apparatus. Light sources outside the structure were also tried, including Sunlight, but finally an artificial light source located above the central axis of the instrument was used. .................

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:34 am 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. It only depends on the state of the aether, and air respectively ! And therefore the whole premise of the MM experiment, that speed of light should change depending on the motion of the source in the aether, was wrong. Its a completelly illogical premise, and any conclusion based on it is also illogical.

Moreover, I think that the design of the interferrometer itself is flawed. Because a good portion of the light which reflects into the mirror after its reflected by the beam splitter's mirror, will be reflected back into the source by the latter, and not pass entirely through the beam splitter after it gets reflected by the mirror. So the source will always be emitting against a similar light beam which is reflected into it.

In the Britannica illustration, it kinds of shows this happening, but for some reason they make it look like the reflected beam is offset and goes below the source. I just dont understand where that offset comes from, if the position of the mirrors remains the same. The light should be reflected back on the same path, right back into the source.

There has been a lot written about the problem with non-wanted reflexions offa ends of prisms etc in MMXs.
Demjanov always skewed his ends etc.

Demjanov always skewed his ends etc.

But did he skew his brain ? Cause it obviously wasnt sharp enough, if he really believed that the motion of the earth through the aether would affect the propagation speed of the light wave in any way. Or in any direction. Thats just as stupid as believing that you can measure a different speed of sound emmited from a moving car, because the sound wave is pushed in the opposite direction by the 'air wind'. So if you measure its speed in the opposite direction, or perpendicular direction, sound will travel at a different speed than in the car's direction. And if no such difference is measured, then it means that the medium of sound waves, AIR, doesnt exist ! LMAO.

These are not scientists, they are CLOWNS. They are ridicuously silly. And the only things they are measuring are their own winds- aka brainfarts.

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:38 am

Demjanov always skewed his ends etc.

But did he skew his brain ? Cause it obviously wasnt sharp enough, if he really believed that the motion of the earth through the aether would affect the propagation speed of the light wave in any way. Or in any direction. Thats just as stupid as believing that you can measure a different speed of sound emmited from a moving car, because the sound wave is pushed in the opposite direction by the 'air wind'. So if you measure its speed in the opposite direction, or perpendicular direction, sound will travel at a different speed than in the car's direction. And if no such difference is measured, then it means that the medium of sound waves, AIR, doesnt exist ! LMAO.

These are not scientists, they are CLOWNS. They are ridicuously silly. And the only things they are measuring are their own winds- aka brainfarts.

I do not understand u.
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.

crawler wrote: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 simply not true, the speed of sound in air does not depend on the velocity of the sound source. It only depends on the state of the medium. Even NASA agrees with this:

NASA wrote:The speed of transmission of the sound remains a constant regardless of the frequency or the wavelength. The speed of sound only depends on the state of the air (or gas) not on the characteristics of the generating source.

Didn't you read my previous posts ? This assumption that the movement of the source should affect the speed of transmission of the wave is the fundamental error of the MM experiment.

And what wind are you talking about, if the air is static there is no wind. If you stick your hand out from a moving car and it is pushed back that is not a wind, it's just air resistance. And if you stick your head out and scream the speed of sound will not be reduced by it. Because the medium remains in the same state, i.e. static. Air does not move with 100km/h because the car moves in it with 100km/h. Just like the water in a swimming pool does not move with 10 km/h because you swim in it with 10km/h.

It is absurd to believe that air resistance can affect the speed of propagation of sound waves through air. As if air resists to itself.

So all these scientists who expect the speed of the waves to be affected by the velocity of the source, are completelly illogical.

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 !

ChatGPT wrote: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.