The MM experiment is wrong!

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

  1. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Clarifying this issue is too difficult and would, in my opinion, lead too far. Please, I think, let us confine ourselves to the following statement, which I mean seriously: physics does not know what an inert mass is.
    I accept that mass points are of size 0 and near 0 mass. All known mass (the mass of an iron ball) is the mass of the quarks in the nucleus of the atom un. the only known masses are those of the relativistic masses of the quarks in the nucleus. Also, the proton figure shown shows 3 quarks orbiting at the speed of light, with mass growth giving nearly 70% of the mass of the proton, the rest being the ether sea and gluons. I seem to remember pointing you to the extended article with its URL link.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,850
    Questions - no need to go into lengthy detailed replies. Readers Digest of Readers Digest answers are fine

    1/ Have you detected this aether?

    2/ What equipment was used?

    Thank you

    Depending on answers possible more questions

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    11,637
    Then why is there no data or calculations, just you making empty claims with no evidence?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    So to be clear you are using results from relativity that assume a finite invariant speed of light in a theory that explicitly denies that and when challenged on your self contradiction you say discussing it would "lead too far". And you expect to be taken seriously.
     
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    Just more claims without evidence.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,784
    So just as a point of logic -

    If you are challenged on a scientific claim you make, and you respond "well, clarifying it is too hard" - that means you cannot support your claim because you don't understand the subject.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  10. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
     
  11. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    This chapter is a continuation of the previously started essay "The MM-Experiment is wrong!". It now continues with chapter 4. (No worries, it only goes up to chapter 6.)

    4. Interpreting the experiment



    I would first like to make a few additions to the hypothetical conditions of the experiment.


    The relationship between ether and matter


    Ether is a weightless massless invisible liquid, although it is made up of particles with a high density and enormous kinetic energy. We humans do not perceive its enormous pressure, just as the flounder fish in the Mariana Trench does not die as a result of the high pressure. The fish is filled with high-pressure seawater both inside and outside its cells. The aether is not only outside inside and between our cells, but also inside our atoms and nuclei. It is only because of its strong electrical and magnetic properties that we can observe it in certain special experiments.


    The L-shaped interferometer has the aether inside its tubular arms, and it blows through the walls of the tubes just as easily as if it were not there. So whether the aether is moving or not, it passes unhindered through all material bodies. Light, however, is linked to it through its electromagnetic properties, and in it, by picking up the speed of light, it moves with it.


    The landmark M-M experiment of 1887


    The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, carried out in America, was the milestone, the pinnacle experiment, which everyone accepted as the final decision that the device would show no effect. Michelson played a very large part in this acceptance, because he was, is, and will be the best experimental physicist in the world. (There may be better ones in the future, but none of the very many physicists will be able to stand out.)



    The circumstances of the experiment


    Michaelson placed a container on the laboratory table and filled it with mercury. Into this, he placed a heavy marble disc, which swam on top of the mercury but allowed the disc to rotate. On top of this was mounted the L-shaped interferometer, and even the light source itself. All this was done to damp vibrations from the ground. Obviously, he also used a lot of rubber sponges and tennis balls, as is common in optical experiments today. Train traffic was also stopped for the duration of the experiment within a 10-mile radius to reduce the number of sources of vibration. The latter shows the enormous importance attached to this experiment by the American physical society, the elite of society, and the American government.



    Theoretical foundations

    The experiment was based on a sea of stationary aether, which in the eyes of physicists of the time was indisputable. Other basic assumptions were the rotating Earth, the observer, the interferometer on the ground and the light source (sometimes even the distant stars) on the ground. The measuring instrument was always placed on the Earth because it cannot be moved due to the vibration. By the way, the L-shaped interferometer is a very insensitive instrument, in this respect, it is almost impossible to invent something worse. (I myself made 4 instruments several orders of magnitudes more sensitive in 1980)



    But there is no need to move it - they thought at the time, because the Earth is moving in the etheric sea-anyway. You do not need to know the direction of movement, the device is rotated anyway to and fro. It also signals when it is set in a general position, since there is no way of knowing which way the true velocity vectors are pointing. In fact, the device is rotated from time to time and must then be in a different position relative to the aether flow.



    The primary purpose of the experiment was to detect the phenomenon, the quantification of the phenomenon being secondary. It was thought that it was not necessary to move the light source itself, since the light emitted from it would be detached from the light source and would be aligned with the surrounding aether. The over-precise experimenters produced interference circles. A fragment of this can be called interference fringes and is perfectly sufficient to judge the experimental result. (I always refer to interference fringes myself.) If the stripes are displaced when rotated, the aether wind will show itself through the displacement of the stripes.



    The wrong way out

    Since their physicist wanted to solve the problem anyway, they came up with the strange idea that light is a special entity whose speed is not added to the speed of the interferometer. Moreover, and even more seriously, light moves at the speed of light c relative to all bodies. This "result" is in fact a bankruptcy of logical thinking or bankruptcy of logic. If we believe this claim, then logic is over, and any scientific statement of nature is a right not to obey the rules of logic.



    5. Other MM-Experiments

    Sincerely Tom Tushey
    Mech. Engineer
    Hobby Physicist
    Hobby Astronomer
    Science W
    Relativity
    www.aether-tom.com (Eng.)
    www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu (Eng.)
    www.aparadox.hupont.hu (Hu)
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,850
    Ummmm

    Weightless + Massless + Invisible LIQUID???
    So how was Ether detected?

    ....oh wait it is made up of particles with a high density and enormous kinetic energy.

    So Ether's energy is detected ✅

    Got it

    So NOT Ether's energy

    Love to see photo of equipment used in certain special experiments.

    Ummmm are we talking logic? (philosophy)
    or
    a scientific statement of nature (confirmed by numerous experiments) oh that's right you don't believe

    Strange a person who does not consider then the verbal type but likes to explain with formulas and diagrams, just posted notes only with no said formulas and diagrams

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





     
  13. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Where did you read that?
    Apart from being disputed by all the other people who tried partially and fully entrained ether hypotheses you mean.
    Rubbish. All velocities are composited in relativity it's just that the composition of \(c\) and anything else is always \(c\).
    No mate it's just that it doesn't fit your world view and you don't want to make the effort to correct your world view so you're just going to pretend the world works the way you think it ought to.

    Are you going to address the self contradictory use of relativistic maths in your lame retread of a theory or are you going to do the usual crank thing of refusing to think critically about your ideas while accusing scientists of refusing to think critically about their ideas?
     
  14. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,850
    Logical answers are not evidence

    Apart from that I don't understand your logic
    No
    If you have detected your Ether why have you not provided plans for your equipment for scientists to use and prove for themselves your Ether exist?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Edited to add from your article

    as air and water are invisible.

    https://www.aether-tom.com/articles/aether-and-superstring

    air and water are NOT INVISIBLE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022
  16. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Then why are there no data or calculations, just you making empty claims with no evidence?
    In the meantime, let's look at some of the more important parameters of ether according to the CODATA data:
    https://www.aether-tom.com/articles/aether-and-superstring



    I would like you to wait until I post my article here, in which I try to put the above parameters into context. They all prove that the aether does exist, a claim that currently goes against the rest of today's mainstream opinion. So there is a big problem with the MM experiment, so what I have written so far is not idle chatter. If you pick out one parameter from the above, you and I can argue about that separately.

     
  17. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Just more claims without evidence.
    I, for my part, do not use relativity in the slightest. It is flawed in its two postulates and has about 8 contradictions with internal or external science. Please give me some time to list them.
    I cannot answer the question "what is mass" and I am convinced that this is not the job of engineers. You answer it, from your own knowledge or quote the answer from the physics you are taught. But not now because that's another debate will.​
     
  18. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Just more claims without evidence.
    I have a full article on this on the web, which supports the construction from all sides. But I would leave the subject for later. See the article here!
     
  19. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    If you are challenged on a scientific claim you make, and you respond "well, clarifying it is too hard" - that means you cannot support your claim because you don't understand the subject.
    I have just replied to Origin saying that I don't think this is a task for engineers. Please look there.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,471
    I often wonder why so many of the physics cranks we get have an engineering background. I suspect it is because they mostly work in a classical physics regime and also because they are not exposed to science research very much, so can sometimes fail to understand the vital role of observation of nature in the scientific method. But it is depressing, nonetheless.
     
  21. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    So Ether's energy is detected ✅

    Yes, the ether is full of energy and sometimes it comes out spontaneously or after some technical fiddling. My relevant article is called Perpetuum mobile. I will post it here later. In the meantime, you can check it out here.
    http://www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu/11/perpeetum-mobile



    Love to see the photo of equipment used in certain special experiments.

    There is no special apparatus or photo to show the particles of the aether yet because it is too small. (I had another answer, but there I wrote about the speed of the aether.) I am also very curious about a photo of the electron, but I don't really hope for it.



    Strange a person who does not consider then the verbal type but likes to explain with formulas and diagrams, just posted notes only with no said formulas and diagrams

    I also produce text (preferably logical), data and graphs. I feel this is a good ratio, but you suggest where to move!
     
  22. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Michael 345 Said:
    Logical answers are not evidence

    A logical answer is an evidence if it shows that another theory has a logical flaw.

    Michael 345 Said:
    If you have detected your Ether why have you not provided plans for your equipment for scientists to use and prove for themselves your Ether exist?

    I had no money, no time, no energy. However, I have made 10 more experimental descriptions, which I will present here. I have sent it to the academic level, but it is not being dealt with. It is because they are forward-looking, they see that I am right and they know they will have a lot of problems.
    I feel that you would rather control me instead of answering the question: is the MM experiment correctly interpreted, Yes or No?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022
  23. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    If I understand you correctly, you don't accept that the anther sticks to the surface of the planets, maybe you don't accept that the parts further away from it are lagging behind, so that's where the aether wind blow relative to the surface. I take it you don't accept that there is an aether to fill the vacuum. But then what is in the vacuum: an emptiness, some small matter or dense matter that affects the behavior of normal matter? It would help if I could get your opinion.

    And I think that in physical processes there is nothing but absolute speed. This is the speed of light in its immediate vicinity, i.e. ether, which is c, or water, which is c/n, etc. If you look at all this from a moving object (Einstein and relative speed) then nothing really changes, you are just complicating your own life and even coming to wrong conclusions.


    You have obviously been taught to have a deep belief in relative speeds and to reject the old, the absolute woundedness. I have also given many concrete examples in my answers that only absolute speed is physical reality. Relative velocity is only an easy way to simplify thinking, but it leads to great complications. See relativity.



     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022

Share This Page