# The MM experiment is wrong!

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

1. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,637
It seems that you just want traffic to your website.

I don't want to go to your website, this is a discussion forum, so present your evidence here. All you have done so far is present the typical arm waving dismissal of relativity with nothing to back it up.

I think you should either present your evidence here or be on your way, just repeating that relativity is wrong with no evidence is very unconvincing.

exchemist likes this.

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

Messages:
12,850
I am not sure if f this is YOUR text or MINE since you appear unable to work out how to respond to a person's post to give it a coloured box while keeping your own text white

But here is a photo

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829194-900-smile-hydrogen-atom-youre-on-quantum-camera/

Smile, hydrogen atom, you're on quantum camera

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

Messages:
12,850
Like on a dog lease?

What a weird idea

I would prefer a discussion within SciForum and almost none of your "look at / go to my web site here "

origin seems to be correct

YES and has been correctly interpreted numerous times

Last edited: May 16, 2022

7. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
As an aside I love super geniuses who've smarter than every other person on the planet but can't even figure out a quote function.
So what you're saying is that you read it somewhere. The claim that all trains were stopped in a ten mile radius seems utterly implausible because the experiment ran for over a year and the need to stop trains isn't even mentioned in Michelson and Morley's own paper on the subject and if it were that critical it seems like the kind of thing you'd mention.
I generally don't accept theories that are already falsified because that would be stupid and fully and partially entrained ether theories of this kind are well known to be inconsistent with astronomical observations.
Absolute woundedness? WTF? Anyway it's not really like the principle of relativity is new it dates back over four hundred years. And I don't "have a deep belief" in relativity it's that it's experimentally tested and absolute motion theories fail every time.
I haven't seen any. Quote one.

8. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
Sabine Hossenfelder did a thing where you paid her \$50/hr or something and she'd listen to and criticise your "theory" and she said the vast majority of people who took her up on it were male engineers in their late 50s or retired and all of them basically didn't like the way that physics veers away from simple mechanical explanations as you get further into it. I think she said she saw it as people who were very good at engineering wanting to turn physics into something they could understand with their engineer's mental toolkit.

exchemist likes this.
9. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,784
You use it every time you use a GPS.

DaveC426913, origin and exchemist like this.
10. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
5. Other types of aether wind experiments

Moving on from milestone 0 (1887), a very large number of experiments and attempts have been made in more recent times.

I am about to translate about 50 experiments into English and will post them on my website in the near future. Here I have highlighted only a few of the experiments at considerable random.

1. Michaelson, Morley, and Morley etc.

The experimental physicists did not lose faith after a negative conclusion and continued to perform experiments in the early 1900s. However, it is appropriate to write about these in more detail, which I will translate into English later.

2. Kennedy and Thorndike, 1932

In this experiment, the researchers used an interferometer of different arm lengths in an acute-angled (56 degrees) arrangement. With a light-path difference of 32 cm, the creation of interference fringes was a feat. This was achieved in the infrared region of the mercury vapor lamp (l=5461 nm). Unlike Michelson, the instrument was not rotated but fixed to the laboratory table. It was obviously expected that a change of velocity and direction along the earth's orbit would cause an interference pattern change. But even the rotation of the earth's surface could show up in the result.

3. Jaseva, Javan, 1964

On a rotating table 2, high-stability infrared lasers lay in a perpendicular position. The researchers allowed an anisotropy of up to 30 m/s as inferred from the difference in frequency.

4. Shamir and Fox, 1969

A replicated M-M type experiment with light beams passing through plexiglass (n=1.49). The sensitivity of the laser-based optics was ~0.00003. The researchers reported null results, allowing the max deviation could be 6.64 m/s.

5. Mueller et al, 2003

Modern Michelson-Morley experiment with cryogenic optical resonators. The anisotropy was less than 10-15Hz.

6. Herrmann et al, 2005

This is also a test for the isotropy of the speed of light. The experimental device was a constantly rotating optical resonator. The limit is 10-16Hz.

7. C.W. Chou et al, 2010

The "American" experimental physicist developed an extremely sensitive and extra-stable energy measuring instrument. It consists of two metal boxes, each containing an exciting aluminum-ion radiant source (~1015Hz, near-ultraviolet range.) One box contains the electronics for the difference frequency display and is connected to the other box by a 70 m optical cable. If the energy level of one of the boxes changes, the frequency emitted by the aluminum ions inside it changes. It can detect heights as low as 0.5 m and speeds as high as 3.2 m/s with a difference signal of 0.05 Hz.

Eh=mgh=1*10*0,5=5J, Em=mv2/2=1*3,22/2=5J. This stylized calculation is for a mass of 1 kg but instead, think of the mass of an aluminum atom.

The experiments also show that the motion of the aether could not be detected, i.e. the aether wind does not blow at ground level! As things stand at the moment, it is very close to 0, so this is no longer of any practical significance. Further refinement of the experiments is now unnecessary because it is likely that the speed of the aether wind at the ground surface is not only practical but also theoretically 0.

6. Evaluation of the topic

The Michaelson-Morly experiment is a very important part of the discovery of physical reality and is also the basis of the theory of relativity. Unfortunately, the physics community has accepted the flawed experiment and its flawed evaluation that the speed of light is the same value as c for all bodies, neither more nor less. This is obviously a logical absurdity, and whichever theory is based on this absurdity must be questioned and revised.

The cream of physicists, however, did not give in to the null result of the MM experiment but continued to try to find the correct solution. They were like this the people who carried out the experiments described in Chapter 5, and most notably Michaelson himself too. He often said that he was very sorry that his no-effect experiment had started a process in science that would surely lead to a fallacy. It was mainly for this courageous stand that he became my favorite physicist and my role model.

The moral of this unfinished story is that incredible results should never be accepted. Experiments and logical proofs must be repeated over and over again, and we must believe that nature's solutions are logical and understandable to us.

A good example of trying again is the development of the aluminum ion source by C.W. Chou. Then subsequently repeated the MM experiment with a new method and showed a positive effect. This is the kind of experiment that the eminent physicists of past centuries believed in, and their intuition and faith in human logic proved successful. I will add that I will be translating some more experiments with positive effects into English in the near future, and I will also describe some of the hopeful experiments I have devised, including one that I have already done and which has produced positive results.

These sophisticated experiments, though looking back in time, are important, but we have more important work to do. We need to reactivate the ether, the liquid-like substance that fills the universe and creates the physical connection between material bodies. By the way, it is the ether that fills the cosmos, the material bodies, and subatomic particles, and it is the ether that keeps everything moving with its enormous hidden energy. Delusions aside, we must say that the ether does exist! This fact was taken for granted by the scientists of old and used to create the physical worldview. Without aether, the unity of nature is inexplicable, incoherent, and obviously appears to be based on faulty foundations. Of course, I am of the opinion that the aether must be brought back into "modern" physics and urgently incorporated into all modern theories. My new book, which is about to go to print, will express this idea:

A paradigm shift in physics – now!

11. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79

You can't increase traffic to my websites by going someone there from time to time. My website on relativity (www.einstein.eoldal.hu) has 40.500 visitors. So your possible visits will not change this number. By the way, I myself do not go to a foreign website to help or harm it. If your site has a topic that I might be interested in, then give me the link and I'll check it out. Maybe I will in a few sentences also appreciate.
I have other websites with a total of more than 575.500 visitors. These are also scattered around the topic of relativity and have been viewed by an additional 40 thousand visitors. Anyway, I do not wish to increase the number of visitors, I am satisfied with this. But I miss the more to-the-point and logical posts. Not because Hungarian physicists don't have an opinion, but because they don't dare to speak out due to the academy's strict opinion policing.

Látogatók: 2022.05.17.

A honlap címe

kattint

Látogatók, tegnapi

Látogatók,

napi átlag, összesen,

száma kattint

proton.hupont.hu

itt!

38

16

20 601

atommag.hupont.hu

itt!

36

16

15 911

itt!

38

31

94 227

kattint.hupont.hu

itt!

2

8

26 220

rajzos-fizika.hupont.hu

itt!

6

9

17 579

itt!

11

18

18 595

einsteinfellegvara.gportal.hu

itt!

2

2

7 897

klima-kontrol.hupont.h

itt!

9

8

7 305

itt!

61

75

310 475

einstein.eoldal.hu

itt!

9

24

40 452

roswelli-rejtely *.8x.hu

0

0

6 215

a-zold-csillag.hupont.hu

itt!

34

13

7 605

kattint.com

itt!

Összesen:

246

220

573 082

English:

A honlap címe

kattint

Látogatók, tegnapi

Látogatók,

napi átlag, összesen,

száma kattint

reactivated-aether.hupont.hu

itt!

46

13

2 390

tom-tushey.hupont.hu

itt!

0

0

aether-tom.com

itt!

7

0

93

Összesen:

53

16

2 483

Összesen összesen:

299

236

575 565

12. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79

I'm sorry but I, Henriett, spoiled the post because I haven't yet managed the forum properly. I wanted to sort it out line by line, but I did something wrong and ran out of 30 minutes to fix it. I can't get the picture to post as you wrote. For some reason, I copy and paste the picture and only the image tag appears. Sorry for the way it turned out, but I'll try to paste Tom's reply correctly. Hi: Henriett , secretary

Tom: If it is indeed a hydrogen atom, then my congratulations to the inventor of the device and to you for finding the photo. I do have one concern though because the hydrogen atomic nucleus is 100 000 times smaller than the boron shell. This ratio is not shown in the picture. I always take new discoveries with a good heart, and I'm not too ashamed if I'm wrong in my prediction. I note that a couple of years ago I preferred the news item in PRL announcing that a hydrogen atom had been produced in a vacuum (test tube) from "nothing". This was already predicted by the British Royal Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who said that every year, a new hydrogen atom is spontaneously produced from a vacuum every several km3 in volume. He logically solved for the constant density of matter in the cosmos, despite the expansion.

13. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
The experiment lasted 6 years, with many repeated attempts and improvements. In fact, they had to sleep and eat too. The trains were then told that they could go now. I do not suppose that the physicist who wrote the train thing was bluffing. Anyway, it is a minor detail among the many serious confusions of concepts and obvious contradictions.

I have a suggestion that represents a qualitative step forward in the debate:
Someone from this company summarizes the M-M experiment in the light of his own logic according to the current official position. I hope it will consist of coherent elements that fit together. In light of this, I will revisit my own writing inserted here. This will create the basic condition for a balanced debate: we both had put our complete and coherent views on the table. Thank you in advance, Tom

14. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79

My problem is that, as far as I know, physicists have did not study geometry at university, even though the geometry is just as exact as mathematics but more transparent. I'm curious how many semesters of geometry you guys have taken. Tom

15. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
GPS is not linked to Einstein. It is based on the formulas of Maxwell, H.Hertz, and Lorentz. But there is nothing relative to it. I have detailed its operation in detail in one of my books, which is about 10 pages. I'll be happy to send it to you if you want, although it's in Hungarian for now.

16. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,637
So that statement is supposed to convince me you aren't just interested in increasing traffic to your site?

When are you going to stop just stating relativity is wrong and supply some data and calculations?

17. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,310
All that shows is how little you know. Relativity itself is a geometric theory. It is all about the geometry of space-time.

mikelizzi likes this.
18. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,784
Uh - Einstein took the Lorentzian equations (which postulated that the luminiferous aether was the reference frame) and used them to prove that there WAS no unique reference frame, and that the Lorentzian time contraction was a direct consequence of special relativity.

If you did not account for that time contraction, then GPS would not work. Every time you use one, you either acknowledge that Einstein was right, or you acknowledge that you do not understand special relativity.

19. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,471
I quote the Wkipedia article on GPS error correction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System

A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[15] that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects are time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010faster than an Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth.

billvon likes this.
20. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
I think there's an error in your translation because you seem to have translated "something I refuse to accept no matter what evidence is shown to me" as "logical absurdity". Deriving the Lorentz transforms from simple assumptions not including the invariance of $c$ is easy.
You accept direct self contradiction in your own theory so this sentence is extremely hypocritical.
Indeed and so relativity which is derived by logical mathematical argument from simple postulates is on a much stronger foundation than your self contradicting nonsense.
Reference needed.
This seems to be a call to assume the conclusion you wish to prove and disregard any evidence that it's rubbish which I suppose is par for the course.
This still sounds like rubbish to me I mean I know how hard it is to get private companies to listen to academics in Britain and I just can't see this happening in America. And again Michelson and Morley make no mention of this in their paper even though they touch on noise reduction and their are much closer sources of noise like the street outside. And your only reference for this claim is that you think you read it somewhere but you don't remember where which is only slightly better than a bloke down the pub told me,
I don't think the contradictions are where you think they are.
Why? It's available in practically every relativity textbook for example pages exercise 3-12 in Taylor and Wheeler Spacetime Physics walks you through it. Do let us know if you get stuck.
You have not put a coherent view on the table and you have ignored me every time I pointed this out.
WTF? General relativity is pure geometry and some places will even start introducing special relativity as a topic in geometry although not all do.
Neil Ashby says you're talking rubbish. Again.

21. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
General relativity in fact because the curvature of spacetime is relevant.

22. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
Scientific debate and argumentation

Editor: Dr. László Hársing

"Management training as a subject

Leadership training is a subject so that a future leader (industrial, scientific, etc...) does not suck solutions out of his finger and learn them at the expense of his subordinates by the time he retires. It can be learned and practiced in the same way as mathematics, but it is much more useful in real life. After two semesters, it became very clear to me that it is an indispensable subject, even for those who have a good aptitude for it. The latter will also do his job better, will be more aware of critical problems that arise, and will have more practice in solving them.

Who should take this training? There are a number of high-level managers, but it is just as important for lower-level managers. It is also important for subordinates because they will get to know and better understand the leader's problems and become more loyal employees. To be more specific, the most important thing for you here and now is a serious course of this kind. The table of contents below already shows how many important aspects are not taken into account by an amateur academic manager who is now trying to put the right spin on the solution of problems and the instinctive, unfortunately sometimes hysterical, the resistance of the discussion partner through discussions and arguments. It may be that the publication of the opinion of a physicist working in science has a greater impact on society than the clever management of a medium-sized company.

For the above reasons, I urge you all to read the table of contents of the book below. Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge in this area does not shout back to us that we need to learn here, only indicates that things are going wrong. It is a good informative and educational text from which to learn and be guided in the right direction. I would then like to take a short detour to continue our original discussion topic, the MM experiment. [Tom]

Foreword

1. The debate as a phenomenon of scientific public life

1.1. Some notes on the history of science

1.2 Are scientific debates necessary?

1.3. Why do people debate?

1.4 The decline of substantive debates

1.5 The main drivers of substantive debate

2. The place of debate in the research process

2.1 Preparing for research

2.2 Identifying and framing the problems

2.3 Creating new debate topics

2.4 Debate as a measure of scientific value

3. Reasoning as rational debate

3.1 Some thoughts on rationality

3.2 Closing possible locks

3.3 The imperatives of science

3.4 An ideal model of argumentation

4. Partial and relative truth

Truth as a value of cognition

4.2 The partial nature of truth

4.3 The relative nature of truth

4.4 Modes and scales of partial and relative truth

5. Characterisation of the epistemic background and arguments

5.1 The need for a common epistemic background

5.2 Everyday knowledge and scientific reasoning

5.3 The structure of the knowledge base

5.4 Respect for arguments

6. Comparative assessment of the truth of the hypotheses

6.1. Originality of the hypotheses

6.2 The degree of difficulty of the answering problem as a measure of originality

6.3. The intrinsic value of hypotheses

7. Methods of rigorous reasoning

7.1 Some introductory formulations

7.2. The prior truth value of complex propositions

7.3 Proof

7.4. Refutation

8. Less strict () reasoning

8.1. Confirmatory reasoning

8.2 Weakening reasoning

8.3 Analogical reasoning

9. A scientific debate from a logical point of view

9.1 Hypothesising and commenting on the "single" and "double" reservation

9.2 An attempt to logically avoid the debate

9.3 Why is it difficult to model an open debate logically?

10. Accepting and rejecting hypotheses

10.1 Rationality and its additional requirement

10.2 The (graphical) length of the expected resolution

10.3 Rules of reasoning

10.4 Some ancient critical remarks

11. What are the preconditions for conducting an effective debate?

23. ### tomtusheyRegistered Member

Messages:
79
I intend to respond to this comment later. But first I will make a suggestion, a new perspective, which may also facilitate agreement on our fundamental debate too. 1. this is a discussion forum. On the Internet, there are only discussion forums, which in fact foment controversy, and generate more and more controversy. The fundamental problem is that we are all descendants of the chronanyon caveman. We are violent, aggressive, and belligerent. We've wiped out all the other caveman races that were more gentle. Now we are preparing to wipe ourselves out, and Newton predicts another forty years after the strong calculations: 2062 I assume you are familiar with Newton's work and have high regard for his scientific abilities.
2. To prevent doom, let us try to hold a consensus forum here. This designation is bound to bring about a more peaceful circle, while disagreements are just as likely to arise, but without the heated debate.
3. Everyone should read the table of contents of the book "Basics of Scientific Debate", which will increase our debate culture. Let us also start to analyze naive science fiction, which unfortunately is taken seriously by many thousands of people. This is the Dyson sphere. Everyone can write down how good the physical and technical basis of this idea is, or what flaws they see in it.