# The MM experiment is wrong!

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

Messages:
79

3. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
So like I said an ether dragging hypothesis of the kind long abandoned because they aren't consistent with measurement.
That's obvious rubbish because almost all of the parts that make up special relativity were known before Einstein first published for example Fizeau's calculation of the speed of light in moving water is a direct result of relativistic velocity addition although that was not understood at the time and Fitzgerald and Lorentz had proposed what would eventually become known as length contraction and in fact Poincare had published the complete maths of relativity in 1904 although he failed to make the conceptual leap to realise what he'd done to Newton. And after 1905 there is plenty of evidence of people taking him seriously like Minkowski recasting his maths in terms of geometry and Hilbert almost beating Einstein to the vacuum field equations not to mention stuff like Schwarzschild solving the field equations after they were published and Einstein explaining the anomalous precession of Mercury and Eddington being convinced enough to bully the Royal Navy into loaning him a destroyer in the aftermath of World War I to go and test the theory of a German speaking scientist.

exchemist likes this.

5. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,637
Why would we consider a situation that is not possible?
A larger electron? What is with the primes on c?
Your going to have to explain your scenario much better than this.
How could you prove such an amazing thing?

7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,550
Tom, the post of mine to which you are replied was not addressed to you but to another user.

8. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,302
How much larger is this electron? Bigger than a bread box? Smaller than a house?

All electrons are identical. In fact, they are indistinguishable. No electron is larger or more massive than another. And no, their speed does not increase their mass; relativistic mass is antiquated thinking.

Please don't pretend to be an expert in things of which you don't have a basic understanding.

9. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,474
And Einstein was appointed professor in 1909, a mere 4 years after publication................

10. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,310
My comments on on the increase of "Mass" had to do with modern convention of how the term "mass" is defined. It used to be common to refer to an object's "rest mass" and its "relativistic mass". This began to become cumbersome, so, for simplicity's sake it was decided to restrict the use of the term "mass" to mean just the "rest" or "invariant" mass. This did not change anything other than how that term was used.
The "wavelength" of light has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Light doesn't even have a single wavelength. Just the visible light spectrum alone varies in wavelength by a factor of 2
As far as your description as to why c(the speed of light in vacuum) is a limit goes, that is really just pop-science explanation. A better statement would be that the relationship between velocity and kinetic energy is asymptotic( rather than exponential as assumed in Newtonian physics) This explains the experimental results just as well, without resorting to a mass increase.

11. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,856
I took the increase in "mass" NOT to be a physical increase as to how much physical stuff the object has but the increasing speed of any object increases its kinetic energy

Said kinetic energy of said speeding objects will interact with other objects in a collision imparting not only said objects mass force but also its kinetic energy force

Throw a bullet at a person, unlikely to break skin. Give it kinetic energy, serious damage

12. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
Thank you for releasing me from the cover-up because it wasn't for me. I think of myself as not being a verbal type, but I like to argue with data and calculations. I wish the other contributors were of the same type.

I would like to continue with the main topic (MM attempt is wrong), but I can't find the edit option. Should I post the continuation here or start a new thread?

13. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
I am glad to read that there is someone who knows the beginnings, the struggle of the past centuries over the failure of the MM experiment. However, I myself would argue that all experimental results contradict the current official view and at the same time justify the aether-centered theory. See here: AETHER AND SUPERSTRING

14. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
This important point is demonstrated by the " no effect" response of the stationary instrument in the MM experiment. It is also proved by the clock flight experiment (Hafele). There is also an aluminum-ion device operating at 1015Hz. American physicists have moved a car at 3.2m/s, the two ion sources being connected by a 70-meter optical cable. The frequency difference was 0.05Hz. This was the lower limit they could safely detect. The change was caused by an increase in the mass of aluminum ions in the moving box. Another experiment is very well known where a difference in height of half a meter was created between two boxes (ground and stool). The instrument gave a positive effect here too. Tom 2022.05.08.

Messages:
79

16. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
Of course, I accept your opinion. I was also thinking of the asymptotic approach. I may have written exponentially, but I wasn't paying enough attention, because the difference of opinion in this debate is even more strident. By the way, I use a Deepl Translator because my English is too slow.

17. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
No it doesn't because mass means the invariant mass which doesn't change. Relativistic mass does increase with speed but that's just a bad name for the total energy. Nobody uses the term anymore because it's connected to a nasty mess of confusing nomenclature and you don't need it because it's just the energy.

18. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
I understand that physicists not so long ago set out to split the mass of a body into two parts. Internal mass is the mass of the stationary material body, and the additional mass from the energy of external forces. In most calculations, we only pay attention to the latter. In my opinion, the resting mass has an internal motion with the 3 valence quark moving in orbit at near the speed of light. So it is also mechanical energy.

I can show you more detailed material on this if you are interested. See here!

19. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
James R.:
Maybe you could tell me how I can post a photo here in the forum because the URL doesn't work. At least I can't open it. Thank you.

20. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
Are you serious? Understanding that the rest mass is $\sqrt{p_\mu p^\mu}$ and relativistic mass is $p^0$ so totally different things goes back to 1908 at least which ain't "not so long ago". Sure you can subtract the rest mass from the total energy to get the kinetic energy but you never need to and it's usually a mistake to do it because mass isn't conserved in relativity so you're gonna introduce stupid mistakes by doing it. That's one reason why "relativistic mass" is a dumb concept that nobody uses any more because it's just a way to forget that it means total energy.

How do you justify using relativistic mass anyway? It's a stupid name for total energy but it's a genuine concept from relativity and has no derivation that doesn't rely on the invariance of light speed that you say you don't believe in. You say relativity is wrong but you use its formulas as if it were right.

21. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,302
You have posted a URL to page, but put it within image tags.

Either
• post the link to the page:
https://www.aether-tom.com/articles/the-internal-structure-of-protons-and-neutrons

or
• use the image tag to post the image itself:

or
• copy and paste the picture directly.

22. ### tomtusheyRegistered 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, and 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.

Although there is a saying that it is easy to be clever in hindsight. We shall see, it is not easy in hindsight!

2. History

When J. C. Maxwell wrote down his equation 4 for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in 1864, it contained a constant that he suspected to be the speed of light.

The speed of light was first measured in the laboratory by the eminent French physicist Fizeau in 1849. He obtained a value of c = 300 million metres per second, which is roughly the value accepted today. This seemed a reassuring certainty, although it left open a 'tiny' question that was still theoretical at the time:

"Compared to what does a ray of light travel at speed c? If we move at speed v towards the light source, do we perceive a higher speed of light? More precisely, c'=c+v?"

It could not be more logical and natural, said the physicists of the time confidently. But we still need experimental confirmation - that's what makes science a science!

The optical device for detecting the speed of light relative to a beam was invented by a German physicist in 1858. But the great physicists of the time were reluctant to take up the task. They were well aware of the extreme difficulty of controlling light rays in a moving, shaking apparatus. Let the young people work now! - they thought. Sir Oliver Lodge, the English physicist, deserves credit for not letting the problem be forgotten. He persuaded several European physicists to carry out the experiment (Bradley, Roentgen, Eichenwald, Wilson, Rayleigh, Arago, Fizeau, Hoek, Airy). Lodge's ultimate hope was the American physicist A. A. Michelson, born in Polish-born.

He has built several devices with the help of prominent European universities, but these have given uncertain or negative results.

3. The ominous M-M experiment

A more abbreviated description of the experiment according to wikipedia (Hu):

"Just as the speed of sound is given in relation to air, the speed of light is given in relation to the ether.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. The aim of the experiment was to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the aether, or absolute space. The experiment used the Michelson interferometer developed by Michelson.

http://www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu/18/the-mm-experiment-is-wrong

The interferometer used in the experiment is shown in the picture. The light from the source is split by the semi-transparent mirror (F) into two beams which are reflected from mirrors A and B. The semi-transparent mirror again splits the rays into two parts, but now only the part of the rays that went towards the E screen is of interest. An interference pattern will appear on the umbrella, resulting from the phase difference between the two rays incident on the umbrella. The phase difference is due to the difference in path and time:

http://www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu/18/the-mm-experiment-is-wrong

The researchers set one arm of the interferometer parallel to the Earth's velocity vector, while the other was perpendicular to it. The light along the parallel arm takes tP time to reach the screen, while the light along the perpendicular arm takes tM time. The time difference causes a phase difference which appears as interference rings on the umbrella. Rotating the whole interferometer 90°, the other arm will be parallel to the Earth's velocity vector. During the rotation, we observe the change in the interference rings, which depends on the time difference.

The result of this experiment was, to everyone's surprise, negative, i.e. the velocity sought was always equal to zero. The experiment was repeated several times during the year and always gave the same result."

4. A bővebb magyarázat
....

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.)

Messages:
79