The MM experiment is wrong!

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

  1. tomtushey Registered Member

    Unfortunately, you are right, the current scientific community does not want to get out of the swamp. Their theories and interpretations are conspiracy theories, and they are doing it against scientific progress and the progress of society.

    Yes, I have indeed been pretending for 50 years to understand and understand the problems of relativity. And there are those who swallow relativity like a duck swallows a noodle.

    My request to you is that you give me the name of a physicist who can claim to understand relativity. In fact, if he or she would be willing to enter the debate and talk to you and me in a decent manner.(I fear that there is no such physicist.)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. tomtushey Registered Member

    Aether and superstring
    (This is a shortened version)​

    Even ancient Greek scientists felt that Outer Space could not be empty. Despite the incorrect naming (vacuum), it must be filled with some material. They thought this was material above a mythical atmosphere. The Latins called this aether, or ether. Its existence in the pre-20th century was absolutely trivial for all physicists and naturalists. The important role of this entity would have remained if Einstein and his theory of relativity had not come. He stated that the vacuum must necessarily be empty, because that is the only way his theory works. He said his theory needs space, but he doesn’t need filler material. Although he later realized (BBC, 1923) that ether is essential to the construction of the world and must be brought back into physics. But then he also realized that the theory he had recently set up was incompatible with ether, so he stayed in the empty vacuum. Today’s physicists say the vacuum isn’t completely empty, there’s something in it. An empty vacuum, as well as a semi-empty vacuum, is a misconception, in fact, a vacuum is a very dense liquid. As we will see, the latter version can provide appropriate and even highly logical solutions to a large number of unsolved requests in today’s physics. This means a change of attitude and a paradigm shift, and physics is on a new footing.

    The Dirac Sea
    There have been many signs in the history of physics, there have been many indications that the vacuum is not empty but is filled with some unknown and invisible matter. Around 1940, Paul Dirac, a former leading physicist in science, came up with the idea that Outer Space is filled to the brim with electrically charged but imperceptible virtual particles. These are called the virtual electron and the virtual positron, which are numerically in equilibrium and arranged in pairs.

    Aether has extreme properties because it is invisible, impalpable, and massless. As we will see, it is actually considered a very dense liquid. It would be logical to give it a dense vacuum name, but perhaps it would be more ethical to call it a traditional ether This is the name given to this wonderful entity by ancient natural philosophers and later by classical physicists. The structure of the dense aether was first tried to edit by Michel Araday. He imagined pins and rollers densely next to each other, where the turning of pins was transmitted by the rollers to more distant areas. Unfortunately, this system is not able to model the complex behavior of the ether, not in the plane, and certainly not in space. It is highly probable that the aether is not a static fluid but a dynamic fluid, i.e. it is in internal motion and in a dynamic internal balance of forces and energy. As we shall see, its properties are difficult to detect, but they are very unexpected, one might say astonishing. Let's review the main characteristics of the dense vacuum, the ether.

    The aether is invisible
    Invisibility is a habitual thing, as air and water are invisible. Only the dirt is visible in these However, the attentive observer may notice that distant objects are more blurred. So clean air and water absorb light rays, albeit to a small extent. He swallows, but he does not mediate, he only passes on himself Not only does the ether not absorb light, it actually transmits it. There are theoretical constructions that try to explain a beam of light traveling at a constant speed without an intermediating medium. These attempts seem weak and even nonsense, both scientifically and technically.

    At the beginning of the last century, astronomers were still convinced that the vacuum was completely transparent and free of dirt. However, they turned out to be wrong because the dust and gas clouds in outer space strongly attenuate the light from distant stars and galaxies, greatly modifying previous distance estimates. The ether is therefore similar in this respect to the invisible media we are used to, the air and water already mentioned, i.e, space also contains light-absorbing pollutants.

    Ether is superfluid
    The phenomenon of superfluidity also occurs in the world of fermions, that is, in our material world. Here, for example, is 2He3 helium, which is a superfluid near absolute zero. It shows no friction and no fluid resistance for objects moving in it. Small objects do not break into them. Bosons well known in theoretical physics are also superfluid, just like the ether sea. Material bodies are not inhibited in the latter media either.

    Physical Parameters
    Many physical properties of vacuum have been measured by physicists as early as the period of classical physics, the 19th century, and the early 20th century. Then the more precise tests and measurements continued, despite the majority opinion that the vacuum was already empty. However, seeing the very accurate numbers, there was some (a little) change of attitude. The complete emptiness has been replaced by the half-full version, the compromise claim that the vacuum is not completely empty, but there is a different thing in it. The logical conclusion is that the vacuum is “full to the brim,” a proof we will make later. In the meantime, let's look at some of the more important parameters of ether according to the CODATA data:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Some of the data in the table are so-called basic data (measured data). Other parts of it are derived data, which we know how to calculate from the basic data. However, this division is rather formal, because nature knows the order of importance much better than we do. Let us consider as derived data: c = (e0*m0, h = 4p* S0 , E0 calculated value (DAVID BŐHM, 1934).

    The energy of the vacuum.
    The internal energy of the vacuum is estimated at 1010 to 10111 joules / m3 by estimates and more modern calculations. This is because the energy of the vibration frequencies must be summed from 0 to infinity, for the up harmonics last indefinitely. Fortunately, the vacuum is located in an energy pit and only passes into a deeper energy pit under special effects. Such a special effect is given, for example, by the electrons orbiting the atom, which continuously radiate energy due to acceleration. It is not a problem for the ether to replenish this spread energy. The situation is similar inside the nucleons that make up the nucleus, where spinning the valence quarks requires even more energy. Their dissipated energy is easily and directly replaced by a vacuum. This is because the vacuum is in every subatomic particle. It is probable that the vacuum gives the energy to the photons and of course, it also determines the speed of the light beam:
    c=(*)-1/2 = 299 792 458 m/s

    Extreme Density of Ether

    There are natural phenomena whose power is apparently not justified by anything. Such is the case with cavitation, which at first appears like an innocuous steam bubble, but then collapses with a huge click instead of a small burst. An example of the force of a vacuum is the Overspeed propeller, from which cavitation can continuously rip metal pieces. (The propeller may “run out.”) An example is the effortlessly floating, seemingly weightless little ball of light, the spherical lightning. This can be very forceful at times. You can press down on the observer's head, smash a church door, or shred a large oak tree into shavings. All these forces and energies come out of the vacuum.

    The rest is for advanced users only...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    That is not how science works. You are the one who is disputing the mainstream position So you are the one who needs to supply the evidence.
    Because you are the one making the claim!
    Blah, blah, blah, you still refuse to supply any evidence or math. You claim to have evidence and math to back up your claims, why not just present it?
    You refuse to do anything but give arm waving denials of relativity. I would love to discuss your ideas if you would ever supply some evidence or math to support it. All you do is make unsubstantiated claims, so there is nothing to discuss.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Arm waving claims with nothing of substance, as usual.
    Arm waving claims with nothing of substance, as usual.
    There is nothing to debate. You don't even try to debate you simply make unevidenced claims.
    By the way, you have talked to physicists on this site and they have pointed out that your claims are wrong.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    they believe that the sea water is stationary

    Do they??? Names and a reference please where these apparently crazy physicists have stated their crazy idea

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Was wondering when this would turn up

    Must try that. I've only feed them bread at Hampton Court

    Of course they did. How silly of them

    And here is me thinking atoms were needed

    So some???? which is imperceptible (so slight, gradual, or subtle as not to be perceived.) Thank you Mr Google and your dictionary can, in the same breath be given a name and imperceptible becomes virtual particles

    I kept reading, but not understanding, until I came to

    which, for me should have been many paragraphs before its current position

    Yours in perpetual ignorance

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Wow, another long winded series of claims with no evidence. Imagine my surprise.
  10. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Why? It's in every textbook.
    Because so far you've shown no evidence of even understanding relativity and you claim to have overthrown it so it ought to be child's play to demo this kind of basic result. And you are the one making positive claims that the derivation is wrong so the onus is on you to show where you think the errors are not on us to show that it is correct. And the results aren't confusing at all unless you come at it with a preconceived idea of some fixed absolute space.
    There has been nothing but handwaving and assertion without proof from you.
    You are assuming the existence of a fully entrained ether and it is plausible that this would lead to a null result of the Michelson Morley experiment but so what? It also leads to wrong predictions for stellar parallax and that is fatal to ether dragging hypotheses.
    I know that because I can read.
    Including you apparently. You don't debate you just witter on endlessly about how you're right and everyone else is stupid.
    Statements without proof are the same as saying the mass increase is caused by unicorns. Prove your claim by posting the maths to show that the mass increases as \((1-v^2/c^2)^{-1/2}\) starting from your idea of ether. If you cannot do that then you effectively admit that you have nothing but unicorns.
    BS. You hoped to distract us from your ether nonsense.
    Practically anybody with a physics degree for SR and half the regulars on most science forums I've looked in on. It isn't complicated. GR is more complicated and there are fewer people around and most of them won't waste their time talking to someone about a theory that's known to be wrong.
    Why do you expect us to talk to you in a decent manner when you won't do the same to us? You imply we're stupid with every word you write. As if ether dragging hadn't been thought of tried and discarded more than a century ago. I mean really. How stupid would you have to be not to consider this? But IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. You only need to read as lame a source as Wikipedia to see some of the problems listed. If you want to be taken seriously you need to show maths and show problems in the maths of relativity not just wave your hands and whine about how relativity is too difficult for you.
    Oh look no maths just more unicorns.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
  11. tomtushey Registered Member

    Of course, I gave you mathematical proof! Let's look at the last one: 0+0+0=0 This may seem like elementary school level to you, too bad you don't realize that this is very serious mathematics. This proves that it is wrong for physicists to expect experiments like Michaelson's to produce any kind of positive output. Will you please state which of the four zeros in the equation is not zero, or prove that the equals sign does not in the right place hold.
  12. tomtushey Registered Member

    I have justified at length, with data, that the interpretation of the MM experiment is flawed. It is illogical to expect the experiment to show any change. But try again and point to the factor that would be able to detect a change in the given setup.
  13. tomtushey Registered Member

    Let's look at a fundamental question: What do you think is in the vacuum? I've written down my clear opinion, and I see that the opinions of the physicists who have expressed them are varied, or otherwise characterized as lukewarm and uncertain, or not brave enough to make a statement.

    I hereby invite all my debate partners to give their own answer to this question, boldly and clearly.
  14. tomtushey Registered Member

    Maxwll, Lodge, Bradley, Roentgen, Eichenwald, Wilson, Rayleigh, Arago, Fizeau, Hoek, Airy.

    They were all physicists, and they thought quite seriously that the aether winds were blowing, and they did not rule out the possibility of small troughs forming inside. But this is the normal way of thinking.

    "Today's physics" is a big conspiracy theory, and it crackles and crackles at the gutters. I'll bet you a case of beer that the crash and switch will happen in 10 years.

    Not noodles but nockedl (German). Here the translator is blocked.

    Just because a civet cat was initially mistaken for a dog does not mean that its breed should be reclassified.

    Einstein made it very clear that he was not referring to atoms, but to the intermediate intermediary fluid, known as the aether!

    If you're thinking of the eight-and-a-half million ratios, don't be offended! (Although the truth hurts, as the Hungarian proverb goes, it's best to admit it.)

    Consider the material you mentioned as a demo, but I think you already know the rest. And that is the superstring theory, which by the way has very high mathematics. The aether is probably a collection of flailing, flapping worms whose mechanical energy gives the total energy of the universe. Worms are 10-34m in size if I remember correctly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. tomtushey Registered Member

    Answer: the increase in mass as a function of velocity since 1905 according to Einstein:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    From the fact that the theory of the aether (as an old-new theory) was blocked for a century, and no one but millions of physicists really developed it. I can't deduce it from the ether myself. However, very quietly think about the fact that the formula is not Einstein's, but Lorentz's from a decade earlier. Lorentz, as a good friend of Einstein's father, always helped Einstein, sometimes helped him out. It is not nice that Einstein did not refer to Lorentz as the origin of this formula. Anyway, I hold Lorentz in high esteem and believe him about the formula. I believe it is the same way that you believe everything Einstein says.

    I assume you know nothing about the ether. And serious people don't judge things out of sight. Ether is serious! But I get the impression from your response that you are ignorant of architectural and technical subjects. How else would you tolerate a 9 billion kilometer-long wall designed to be 3 meters thick? The Chinese wall is 5 meters thick!

    Unless you have to argue about sr on the subject of whether the MM experiment might not be a good one. Feel free to call me a leading physicist who claims to have studied and understood SR. Then give us his clear opinion on the debate between us. And please don't shirk the task, as that would imply that you don't know such a specialist, or that there is no such thing.
    I ask you to temporarily end my examination. Instead, you give me a static test on the Dyson sphere you are so keen to avoid.
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    No you have made claims, that's it.
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    So your opinion of what a vacuum is:
    "Fortunately, the vacuum is located in an energy pit and only passes into a deeper energy pit under special effects. Such a special effect is given, for example, by the electrons orbiting the atom, which continuously radiate energy due to acceleration."

    The vacuum is an "energy pit" and atoms violate the conservation of energy. That's just great. I think you need to learn a little physics before post any more.
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Well, I think that sums up Tom's physics knowledge in a nut shell, with an emphasis on the nut...
    Kristoffer likes this.
  20. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    It proves no such thing. Your expression is stupid because it's just a sum not any useful formula but you are right that the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is consistent with a fully or nearly fully entrained ether but as I have said before so what? Entrained ether theories are incompatible with other experiments and its only your myopic focus on Michelson Morley that lets you pretend to yourself that this hasn't been known for 130 years.
    No you haven't you have asserted it but you have justified nothing and shown no data and no writing 0=0 is not a proof of anything.
    You are claiming these people thought seawater was stationary? Because that's the claim Michael 345 was asking you to support and none of those people would have made that claim because they all come after Galileo.
    Right so you agree that you are using Einstein's theory which assumes a constant frame invariant speed of light so you agree that your own idea of a frame dependent speed of light is nonsense. Thank you.
    So you admit that your so-called theory is nothing but a fantasy. Thank you.
    So what? When fully developed Lorentz's ether turns out to be just an awkward interpretation of relativity and is nothing like your entrained dense particle sea fantasy.
    I don't. I believe conditionally in the things he said that have been tested and not failed those tests.
    Why would you assume that? I've told you several times that the theory you are peddling has been tested and failed those tests so you know I know something about the ether. Or more accurately you have evidence in front of you that I know something about the ether but ignoring evidence that doesn't fit what you want to believe seems to be your favourite approach.
    The reason you have trouble discussing with physicists is because you don't debate you just make unsupported claims and ignore responses and try to evade discussion by changing the topic to Dyson Spheres so most of us get bored of you.
    I don't know about leading but there are at least two people on this thread who understand SR myself and Janus58. You on the other hand haven't shown any evidence of understanding anything to do with relativity.
    Given that you've admitted that you are using Einstein's theory to justify something in your theory so you are contradicting yourself and that you can't actually use your theory for anything you've admitted defeat anyway so I'm happy to leave it.
    Not interested in discussing Dyson spheres on this thread. Start a different thread if you want to talk about them because they have nothing to do with the topic of this one and you're just using them as a weak attempt to deflect attention from how poor your arguments about relativity are.
    origin likes this.
  21. tomtushey Registered Member

    Let me tell you a short story about Einstein's knowledge of geometry. I don't think many people know it, maybe you haven't come across it either.

    At 14, little Einstein was overconfident, lecturing his teachers and scorning the quality of the material he was learning. This annoyed his educating teacher - a university student - and he handed him a 6-part geometry booklet.

    "If you're so clever, little Albert, learn these," said the educating teacher. Interestingly, little Albert didn't get annoyed and say it wasn't relevant (as Ssss used to do), he didn't deflect but learned it all within two weeks. In fact, he was very happy with his new knowledge, he absorbed it. Of course, it was all simple plane geometry. Then he went to the library, took out the official big geometry book, and started reading. But after some turning the pages and reading a few passages, he threw the big book in the corner. This is pretentious, ponderous, boring writing. There is nothing new in it and it put me off geometry.

    Special relativity required no geometric knowledge, it was enough just to think. There are two possible relative velocities of two bodies because the velocity vector has a direction. For three or four bodies, the possible velocities are 6, 24, etc. But if you're lazy (like Einstein), you'll never get to three. Neither, I suppose, would a university lecturer, otherwise, he would realize that there is a very big problem here. In SR there is only straight-line uniform motion. The speed-of-light limit is no longer a geometry but a constant.

    General relativity relies on the flawed SR, adding the identity of acceleration and gravity, which is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and almost screams that it is not good. Einstein made new hypotheses based on GR, such as the curvature of space (curved projector) around the mass. What effect does the curvature of space have on the Earth if it is geometry and not matter? Why does it have a different effect on the comet, so that it is not in a circular orbit but in a hyperbolic orbit? At the same time, Einstein also rejected gravitron, since it no longer fitted into his theory. At the same time, he also rejected the aether, since its existence disproves SR. Let us face it, Einstein did not produce a new geometry, but an irresponsible, unjustified geometry around his theory of GR. At the same time, he had already abandoned the nice basic knowledge he had acquired as a child, and could not follow the new ones.

    Who would dare question Einstein's irresponsible geometry of space-time? Those who don't know better (minimum 7 billion people) nod in agreement, those who do know a little are silent because they don't know any better and their good jobs pay.

    Otherwise, thanks for your objective comment, although it would lead in too many directions. I suggest we stick to the current topic or return to the basics of the MM experiment.
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Well I'll be damned, nothing but more unevidenced claims!
  23. tomtushey Registered Member

    I have listed a number of more modern experimental physicists who have risked money, time, and energy to repeat the MM experiment. These are: Jaseva, Javan, 1964, Shamir és Fox, 1969, Hafele és Keating, 1971, Brillet és Hall, 1979, Frisher és munkatársai, 1990, Hils és Hall, 1990, Wolf és Petit, 1997, Chen, Peking, 1997, Mueller és mts, 2003, Herrmann és mts, 2005, C.W. Chou és mts, 2010,
    To sum up your rants so far, you consider these physicists to be retrogrades with flawed thinking. You think that Einstein and you predicted their failure definitively. I think they are right and even smarter than you. (much, much) I'm glad you've closed the debate between us because you don't have a debate culture.

Share This Page