The MM experiment is wrong!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by tomtushey, May 3, 2022.

  1. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    The MM experiments - i.e. the Michaelson-Morley experiment - are flawed not only in their interpretation but also in their design. It is very important to set the record straight because this is the origin of the profoundly mistaken physical law that light travels at the speed of light relative to any moving object. I apologize if I do not write here with the usual brevity, but in some cases, I will expand on the lack of knowledge, the many related delusions, and philosophical fantasies that actually eclipse real physics. (Tom)


    Preliminary

    Relativity is a strongly abstract but universally accepted theory. He has dominated physics for 100 years, since 1921, when Einsten received in his hands the Nobel Prize. The theory conflicts perfectly with quantum theory, although some still hope that the two can be reconciled. Certainly not, and quantum theory is certainly true. In what follows, I will show that relativity is flawed and contains logical internal contradictions, regardless of the contradiction I have just mentioned. I will also base this proof on my reactivated aether theory, see later. By the way, Einstein agreed with the aether theory, saying that nature cannot exist without a connecting substance, the aether. I may be able to obtain the relevant audio material (BBC 1923) and publish it (in English, with a thick German accent) for those who believe in authority, for whom the question is settled. There are legitimate questions about the physical properties and natural behaviour of the aether. On the first subject I have written in detail elsewhere, now a dozen papers. I will publish some more initial thoughts on its behaviour below.


    If the aether exists, then there is much question about its connection with the big bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe, and the relationship of moving, orbiting planets. It is aether related to material bodies, as it expands more rapidly when saturated with energy and somewhat entrains celestial bodies in the form of gravitational pressure (the aether energy gradients). Forming a relatively attractive relationship between solar systems and planets.


    The central celestial body attracts the orbiting planets, so they used to say. In fact, it does not attract, but only repels less. In light of this, Newtonian mechanics tells us that the planets must orbit the Sun. The inner planets orbit faster than the outer planets, and in proportion to their own speed, they drag the aether around them with them. Curiously, the matter in the aether sea around the Sun is subject to the same rule as the planets, i.e. they orbit at a speed inversely proportional to the square root of the distance, as if in synchrony with the planets. The aether sea follows the movement of a planet everywhere. This idea is Dr. K.G.'s + theory, but I had to add a lot of other things before a sound, relativity-free cosmology coalesced. Near celestial bodies, the aether sticks tightly to the surface, moving away from it a transient velocity state occurs. So, standing on rotating celestial bodies and moving away from the surface, the aether wind blows.


    I apologize for putting all this upfront, but this is a preliminary clarification of the basic current misconceptions that dominate the so-called "today's, modern" physics. There always have been, are, and always will be misconceptions the physics. But it still feels dad me sick to think that in 500 years' time future physicists will be laughing or even crying at 21st-century physics.


    Sincerely Tom Tushey
    Mech. Engineer
    Hobby Physicist
    Hobby Astronomer
    Science Writer
    Relativity Expert
    www.aether-tom.com (Eng.)
    www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu (Eng.)
    www.aparadox.hupont.hu(Hu, vut it is the best.)


     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    Alas, I'm not sure many people here speak Hungarian. Do you have an English version, please?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    How about the thousands of other experiments that confirm there results? Are all those other experiments also wrong?
    Einstein did not get a Nobel Prize for Relativity.

    Experiments specifically designed to detect aether dragging have all failed to show the hypothesized dragging.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    I fixed it because for some reason it didn't put in English. Is it still in Hungarian?
     
  8. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
     
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    SR is wrong because the 2nd postulate is wrong.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    No - it's in English now, thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Bizarrely, what you have me quoted as saying I am seeing in Hungarian!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    You cannot prove a theory. That's is basic science.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  12. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Little Einstein heard about the speed of light and its extraordinary value as a child. He imagined running fast after a wave of light and seeing frozen waves when he caught up with it. And that's impossible, he told himself, so reaching the speed of light is impossible. Too bad he lost his courage at this point and didn't try to run even faster in his mind. Then he would have seen with his mind's eye that the waves were lagging behind him. This would have shown him that light is not a border speed.It's even more unfortunate that there was a physicist who took the 12-year-old's dream seriously. It was Einstein himself, aged 26. [Tt]


    "Postulate 2: The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, is constant, whatever the inertial frame and whatever the direction, regardless of the frequency of the light, the speed of the detector, or the speed of the light source. [Wikipedia EN]"


    The definition is correct in that the measured speed of light is independent of the frequency of the light and the speed of motion of the light source. (It is independent the light source is stationary, moving away, or approaching.) However, it is not independent of the relative speed of motion of the light source and the aether. For large celestial bodies (Earth), the aether adheres to the surface, while the speed of light c is determined by the aether. The aether must always be considered stationary! So with a detector placed on the ground, we cannot expect a non-zero signal, which would be a logical absurdity. Unfortunately, all the MM experiments so far have been done in this wrong setup, with the detector stationary and the aether stationary. In fact, the error could have been avoided if the detector had been moved. But they tried to tell themselves that, although the detector is stationary, it is moving. They could not have known that the aether also was stationary (its speed relative to the detector is zero). So "the aether winds were not blowing" at the site of the experiment. [Tt]


    Ether down adhesion has become a fact ever since atomic clocks were invented and set in motion. (See more later!) But the impact of this on the MM experiment would be too delicate to admit. [Tt]
     
  13. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    But the fallacy of the theory can be proven. Take Einstein's first postulate, for example. When Galileo, onboard the ship, made one forward jump and then a second backward jump, he assumed that the two jumps were equal. He then stated that motion with uniform velocity cannot be detected. However, consider that when jumping, the speed of the boat and the jumper are added together. His speed increases, and so his mass increases, according to the Lorentz factor: L=(1+(vs+vG)2/c2)-0.5. This allows the forward jump to be distinguished. [Tt]
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    Correct.
    No, that is not correct. No matter how fast my velocity is, I will never detect an increase in my mass. This is basic relativity.
     
  15. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,312
    You are tying to assume absolute motion in order to refute relative motion, which is a logical fallacy.
    What you have really "proven" here is that you don't actually grasp the theory of Relativity.
    For the moment, we will put aside the fact that most present day physicists would take issue with the "mass increases" statement, due how "mass" is defined in modern physics.
    That being said, all such measurements are "frame dependent". They depend on which inertial frame the measurement is made from, and are not absolute. So, from the inertial frame of the boat*, any "mass" gain by the jumper only depends on his speed relative to the boat, and not the direction he jumps.
    This will not be the case as measured from a different inertial frame, like that of the ocean itself. In this frame, the boat is moving in one direction, and if the person jumps in that direction, his "mass" would increase, but if he jumps in the other it would decrease. In addition, because of the way velocities add in Relativity, his speed with respect to the boat when jumping one way would be less than when jumping the other (even if they were equal in the boat frame)

    This "frame dependency" extents to measurements of time rate, length along the axis of relative motion, and whether or not given events are simultaneous or not.

    The upshot is that you cannot disprove Relativity by assuming concepts ( such as absolute motion) that are not assumed in the theory.

    * when I say "the inertial frame of the boat", this does not mean that there is an inertial frame physically assigned to the boat, but is shorthand for "the inertial frame that the boat is considered to be at rest with respect to"
     
  16. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Oh hey an ether dragging hypothesis. They were popular about 130 years ago but then people figured out that light coming from space would have to be affected by passing through the boundary between the dragged ether and the undragged interstellar ether and started looking at stellar parallax and found no such effect so discarded the idea because it had been falsified by experiment.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    Seriously?
    You haven't even bothered to read a primer on relativity - as witnessed by the basic misunderstandings you have about it - and you call yourself and expert?

    To think outside the box, you must first understand what's in the box.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,787
    Not to an observer on the boat.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,550
    Controversial claims should be supported by appropriate argument or evidence.

    Please avoid making blanket claims without trying to support them.

    If you think that you can show that SR is wrong, start a new thread posting your proof. If you're not going to do that, don't make empty claims.
     
    ajanta likes this.
  20. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    I think it matters how fast the speed is. Consider a fog chamber into which an electron is shot at speed c'. A perpendicular and homogeneous magnetic field will set this electron in a circular orbit of a given radius. It is true that this is an inward spiraling orbit because it is swirling with the fog and also radiating electromagnetically. Take a larger electron with a velocity of c'', which has a larger mass and starts its orbit in a circle of a larger radius and moves inwards in a similar spiral shape. During these experiments, it does not matter how fast the solar system is traveling through space and in what direction it is moving relative to the experimental device.


    Around our experimental instruments, the nearby aether is at zero absolute velocity. Relative velocity was introduced into physics by Einstein, but it is not useful for calculations, at most it is a hindsight aid in everyday life. I can show you an example where a railway worker (v0) is standing on the embankment of a railway track (v1), a train is passing by, a passenger is walking (v2) on the train and a beetle is crawling (v3) on his hat. If I remember correctly, this implies a relative speed of 6 different types, maybe you should do the resulting. I'll do it later and an English translation, but you can check the original here. Relative speed always causes chaos, and I'm interested to see counterexamples of it, I like to untangle such things.
     
  21. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Thank you for the warning. I will try to justify everything, although I have tried to do so in the past. Which is the one, do you think my justification was incomplete? Only the introduction is on the opening page, where I will add further explanatory details shortly.
     
  22. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    The aether clings to all nearby celestial bodies. As bodies move, the ether sea moves flows and swirls without sharp transitions. Similar to a river that sticks to two banks while avoiding obstacles, boats, and not exactly following the curves. Einstein's theory of relativity was not taken seriously by any scientist in 1905. The turning point was 1921.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    False.
     

Share This Page