diyAudio (
-   The Lounge (
-   -   Michelson and Morley proved Einstein was wrong (

7n7is 13th August 2010 12:30 AM

Michelson and Morley proved Einstein was wrong
Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) null result proves special relativity (SRT) is false.

Michelson and Morley proved Einstein was wrong. The reason its taught that the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment supports special relativity is a result of mass delusion, herd mentality and general misunderstanding of the logic involved.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was done long before astronomers discovered galaxies and evidence for the big bang theory. At the time it seemed like an aether drift experiment was about the only way to measure the earth's velocity through the universe. If the aether is separate from space then, obviously it is NOT at absolute rest based on Newtonian physics.
Hendrick Lorentz even wrote in 1895 that talking about the aether being at absolute rest is meaningless. Einstein also wrote his famous 1905 paper on SRT when he and most other scientists didn't know about the expanding universe. Einstein even published a theory with an equation which included a gravitational constant to make it look like the universe wasn't expanding. He called this the greatest blunder of his lifetime.

>>> Aether drift experiments are NOT designed in any way to measure an absolute velocity if the aether is separate from space. Aether drift is NOT an absolute velocity.

Sometime after Einstein wrote his first article on SRT in 1905, Sagac performed an interferometer experiment on a rotating table which showed a fringe shift when the table was rotating compared to when its stationary. This is known as the Sagnac effect and a lot of optical gyroscopes have been made which use this effect.

There's even a lot of US patents on these instruments.
Go here Class Schedule for Class 73 MEASURING AND TESTING
and scroll down to subclass 504.01 Angular rate using wave or beam motion (e.g., Sagnac type) to see the subclass on Sagnac type gyroscopes.

The Michelson-Gale experiment was basically a Sagnac type of experiment which showed the earth rotated around its axis using an interferometer. The well known Foucault pendulum experiment also demonstrates the earth is spinning on an axis. Also, presumably, if a Sagnac interferometer was made the size of the earth's orbit around the sun, then this interferometer
could show that the earth is revolving around the sun using an optical gyroscope using the Sagnac effect.

Michelson calculated that the earth's velocity around the sun known to be about 30 km/s would produce an observable fringe shift in his interferometer. After numerous attempts to detect this result which actually got a result less than he calculated, but was interpreted to be a complete null, he concluded that the experiment failed. Most of physics community believes
the MMX was a complete null and use this as evidence supporting SRT. This is one of the greatest brainfarts in the history of science. Here's why:

I thought of this after I discovered Bryan Wallace's book, The Farce of Physics (easily found on the internet), where he described experiments done by him and some scientists in the Soviet Union independently, which involved experiments where radar beams were bounced off of the planet Venus and detected on Earth and showed that the speed of light between Earth and Venus was not constant as theorized in SRT. Wallace's paper was rejected by physics journals since it questioned Einstein, but he got it published in Spectroscopy Letters. Wallace does not appear to mention the Sagnac effect, but I think this might be one possible explanation for his results.

Also, the MMX was always done on the surface of or above the surface of the Earth which we know rotates around its axis and revolves around the sun. Because of this motion, there must be a Sagnac effect from both types of motion, meaning that the actual speed of light from one point to another on the surface of the earth must differ depending on direction of the beam of light. The reason for the MMX null result can be explained by the Lorentz contraction effect which originally was developed to explain the MMX null result. In Lorentz's aether theory, the Lorentz contraction is a function of the velocity relative to the aether and not the observer as in Einstein's SRT, despite the constant incorrect usage of the term ‘Lorentz contraction’ when referring to the Einstein length contraction associated with SRT.

Now here's the answer: since according to SRT there is no length contraction when the relative motion is zero between the observer and the observed, then according to SRT there should be no length contraction of the interferometer when observed by observers in the same frame of reference. But how do you explain the null result of the MMX when you know there is a Sagac effect causing the speed of light to vary on the surface of the Earth? The only well known published theory is that of Lorentz's, ie. there must be a length contraction in the arms of the interferometer, but the length contraction is a function of the velocity relative to the aether and not the observer as in SRT. Therefore SRT is false and the MMX null provides support for the Lorentz aether theory.

7n7is 13th August 2010 12:48 AM

Some anti-aetherists throw temper tantrums when the aether is mentioned and try to shout down aether proponents, but the anti-aether arguments are all fallacy. Here's why, Einstein never abandoned the aether theory. Its often claimed that SRT did away with the aether, but if you look through the literature carefully, including Ludwik Kostro's book, Einstein and the Ether, you can see that Einstein always believed in the aether. The anti-aetherists usually counter this by claiming that Einstein's aether is different compared to the classical aether theories, but Einstein still believed in some kind of aether.

Einstein apparently made the speed of light constant in SRT to make it impossible to detect the motion relative to the transmitting medium of light, the aether, based on his argument involving the relativity principle. If you remove the alleged frame of reference at absolute rest, the aether, then why would the speed of light need to be constant? Logically it would not need to be constant. The speed of light would then have nothing to do with relativity.

Also, Herbert Dingle has pointed out that the supposed example of the relative motion between a magnet and conductor in Einstein's 1905 article as evidence of relativity, isn’t really a true example of relativity if you consider the fact that the motion of the conductor in the magnetic field causes an instantaneous current, whereas motion of the magnet will not cause an instantaneous current because the changing magnetic field would have to travel at the speed of light to the conductor before it could generate a current in the conductor.

albertg 23rd August 2010 12:33 AM

I stumbled into a copy of "The Einstein Myth And The Ives Papers" at the local library years ago. What an eye opener! I highly recommend it. The best book on non-Einsteinien physics is "Einstein Plus Two" by Petr Beckmann(out of print but worth a look).

Some other points:
1. There is no mass increase with velocity.
2. There is no length contraction with increasing velocity.
3. Ther is no 'time dilation'.
4. We're no closer to a physical understanding of matter than we were 100 years ago
Modern physics has become largely irrelevant today.
Electrical engineering is still in the stone age, and will stay there until Maxwell's original equations are restored. </rant>

pjpoes 23rd August 2010 12:54 AM

I can't speak to the core of this discussion, I'm not a physicist. However, I am an experimental researcher by training and work, and the first thing that caught me with this argument was the proof through null results. I'd caution this, lets not forget the Ignorance arguement:
"The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a short hand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false!). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something." per Carl Sagan.

Pano 23rd August 2010 12:55 AM

SY 23rd August 2010 12:58 AM

Funny, my GPS works.

pjpoes 23rd August 2010 01:00 AM

Mine took me off a bridge.

Pano 23rd August 2010 01:24 AM

GPS is just HF LORAN. Nothing mysterious there.

SY 23rd August 2010 01:43 AM


Originally Posted by panomaniac (Post 2280510)
GPS is just HF LORAN. Nothing mysterious there.

Nope, nothing mysterious at all. But without relativistic correction, the whole system falls apart quickly.

GPS and Relativity

Relativity is one of the most well-established and experimentally verified principles of modern physics. Thus it attracts more than its share of ignorant cranks.

pjpoes 23rd August 2010 01:57 AM

Wasn't LORAN the predecessor to GPS, being a low frequency ground based navigation system. GPS differing not just in the frequency range used to transmit the signal, but in the use of Satellites instead of ground based radio antenna's? I mean, I'm not sure I would go so far as to call that "just HF LORAN" then.

Well since SRT is wrong, lets reset the clocks to be match earth clocks and see what happens. Should be a fun experiment. Maybe that is what happened to the poor chap that drove off a bridge?Faith in GPS sends Mercedes downstream -- Engadget

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36 AM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2