Listen here. You are the first person who actually shows the simplest way to understand the math on MM. Everyone else wants to show how good they are in Algebra. Thanks for showing the step by step approach for guys like me who wasnt good with maths in school.
Why is the hypotenuse of the triangle at 3:00 equal to c*t? This seems to imply that the faster V is, then the longer it takes for the light beam to come back even though its traveling perpendicular to the ether wind. Just intuitively it doesn't make any sense to me?
(1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs. (2) The MMXs were never null. (3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind. (4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains.
@@PhysicsHigh Demjanov is not peer reviewed. Re the many recent peer reviewed papers repeating null results, send to me one at a time, & i will tear them to shreds (based mainly on the theories of Prof Reg Cahill). I am very knowledgeable re two problems affecting oldendays MMXs, based on my own findings/discoveries, but that is advanced stuff, unlikely to come up here. Anyhow, show me one peer review of any of Einstein's papers. No hurry.
In addition to my four comments of 2 weeks ago. Michelson's & Miller's MMXs suffered from two spurious signals. (5) Firstly a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that got larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right). (6) Secondly a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didnt mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to a change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being changed by the wind). I can better explain all of this if anyone is interested.
@@acduck2813 Good question. Surface tension in water might be the key. Gerald Pollack explains how in most cases surface tension is due to a special phase of water which he calls EZ water.
I feel like you should have finished the proof that T_along >= T_across. Can be done as following: So we've derived that T_along = (2dc)/(c^2-v^2) and that T_across = (2d)/(sqrt(c^2-v^2)). But if you multiply T_across by sqrt(c^2-v^2)/sqrt(c^2-v^2) (to remove the square root in the denominator), you get T_across = (2d*sqrt(c^2-v^2))/(c^2-v^2). So we're trying to prove that T_along = (2dc)/(c^2-v^2) >= T_across = (2d*sqrt(c^2-v^2))/(c^2-v^2). Or to put that another way, prove that c >= sqrt(c^2-v^2), since we can cancel out all the other pronumerals. LHS = sqrt(c^2), [c >= 0 anyway, but I digress] which is larger than sqrt(c^2-v^2) when v != 0, and equal when v = 0, QED. It should be noted that v = 0 occurs when there is no aether wind, however. So that's why T_along >= T_across. It wasn't exactly obvious enough to just say that the two forms provided in the video are "clearly not the same", and that doesn't even specify an inequality between the two. In fact, when v = 0, they actually *are* the same, so you were technically wrong. I mean, at least you mostly showed why T_along >= T_across. Many textbooks just assumed that it's somehow a trivial statement (it isn't to me), which doesn't exactly help a student understand.
you are right - it isn't trivial. I could have done as you suggested - but you have now down it for me :D The key though is that they are not the same, and such supports Michelson and Morley (incorrect) hypothesis. Thanks for your feedback
Tyranny Takeover I think you're confusing what happens to the light that splits and travels across the aether (ie not *with* the aether). You say that it only travels at the speed of light, which is true, but there is also the supposed aether wind, so it has larger distance to travel. Imagine it as a plane travelling with a wind going North. If the plane was travelling West (ie across the aether), and wanted to return to the same starting spot, it would have to travel further than if there were no wind! So yes, you're right about the cancelling out of the speeds travelling *along* the aether wind, but the experiment expected a difference in time because of the *across* ray having to travel further! Also, I don't really understand what you mean by the last part, sorry! :)
Tyranny Takeover The distance doesn't change, I think I might have been too confusing, this has nothing to do with special relativity yet! :) Try imagining the plane travelling across the aether. It starts and heads, say West. If there were no wind in any direction, it could just travel say 200km and turn around and another 200km later it would be back in the same spot. However, there's a wind from the South, pushing the plane North with a velocity of say 20km/h. You can see that if the plane only travels west, the wind (vector addition!) will cause the plane to move in a North-West direction and on the return trip, North-East. So the plane will definitely not return to the start position (which means the light ray won't be able to reach the half silvered mirror again. So our plane must try to head South-West so that the wind pushing it North will cause the plane to return to the start position! So if you this all out, you'll get a triangle like the one in the video, representing the velocity vectors. The hypotenuse is the light's velocity (which is c), another vector represents the aether wind (which is a variable v), and the last vector is the component vector (which is equal to sqrt(c^2-v^2) via Pythagoras). This just means that since the light ray is travelling at a diagonal, we need to find how fast it is moving only across the aether (not diagonally). So essentially, there is no change in distances, no warping of space-time, the light ray just has to travel further because it's travelling along a diagonal. Hope this helped (and hopefully the vector bit wasn't too confusing)!
Tyranny Takeover I don't see what you mean by measure a course change. The only light that could've reached the interferometer is light that followed this "changed path" anyway! So since the times taken for light to go along the aether and across it (following the "changed path") are different, except when there is no aether wind as I proved in my original proof. So therefore if the light rays didn't take the same time to reach the interferometer, this would mean a non-zero aether wind!
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with your "cancelling out" logic, it kind of does make sense. In the meantime, i.imgur.com/EbYAtMK.png is how my textbook explains it.
I take it that the Earth's rotation is the cause of the VT distance. That has to be a minuscule amount of travel distance, and of course times two. Yet the C+V and C-V will always be equal regardless of the eather wind direction. I don't see how this experiment can measure anything concerning the hypothesized aether.
Consider the case where V approaches C. To fraction d/(C+V) will then equal d/2C, however the fraction d/(C-V) will become very large and approach infinite. Intuitively this means that if the aether wind is just barely smaller then the speed of light, then to travel against the wind the light will take a very very long time, and even though the return trip is nearly instant the total time is still much larger then 2d/c. Also its not earths rotation causing the ether wind as much as the earths movement through space, around the sun, around the Milky Way, etc.
@@tobiasyoder I will need to consider your proposal further, which I have been already considering for years. Two beams of light going in opposite directions while both travailing together near the speed of light in one of the two directions can not be considered logically. They are both in the same frame of reference and time cannot be slower for one and not the other.
how much did the Earth move in the time it took the light to go from the center mirror to the perpendicular mirror and back? a fraction of an atom? maybe if it was on a turntable at the pole turning one revolution every 24 hours focus it to get a wave pattern then turned it 90%. well that I would like to see...
Both Michelson and Morley assumed that the speed of light is not altered upon reflection by a moving mirror. This critical error produced a small variation in the distance traveled by the light between mirrors in the rest frame of ether. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/speed-of-light
We came to the conclusion that the negative result of the M-M experiment is due to the coupling of the mass density of light with the density field emanating from the mass of the planet. Coupling that imposes the same speed of light in all directions of the horizontal plane and makes the principle of relativity work, which prohibits the determination of the state of motion of a system, through experiments carried out inside the system. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium, through which the light passes, is proven by Fizeau's experiment, which precisely verifies Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities. Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities results from the summation of the photon density with the density of the transparent medium, without any relativistic metaphysics.
If the light were a particle like throwing a ball while instead an airplane then you would be correct. However, light was thought to be a wave, so the speed of the light would purely be based on the medium. This means that the speed of the light *relative to the observer/mirror* would be 2d/(c+v) and 2d/(c-v).
The observer (Michelson) is always at rest (all other systems is always in motion). Speed c is the same in all direction. In physics the observer system is always the fundamental reference.@@tobiasyoder
it should work, regardless of the aether flow. If all other theories are correct, the speed of Earth alone would be more than sufficient to show fringes on the detector. M&M stated that in the original paper. But it didn't. But why it doesn't work? Using Ocam's razor, meaning the simplest solution is the most often the right one, these results suggest that Earth doesn't move at the speed proposed by astronomers, or maybe not at all. But this solution was unacceptable to "science circles" and still is, so Einstein developed complicated illogical solution to this problem that was very much welcomed by mentioned circles. I wonder why.
The major problem with their experiment is, if they were in a boat, in a very large whirlpool, and they were to throw a dabber off the side of the boat, the dabber and the boat would appear to not be moving in reference to each other, in spite of the fact that they are in actuality moving. If the Aether around the Earth was rotating around the Earth, with the Earth, and the Aether around the Sun was rotating around the Sun as well, (with the Aether of the Earth rotating as a smaller whirlpool within the larger whirlpool going around the sun), it would appear, like the dabber along side the boat, that the Aether was not moving at all.
Special Relativity still holds based on a mathematical prank . The relativistic dummy copy of the Sagnac formula is a shameless make up. It is the same v = Rw formula used by Sagnac, yet written in a funky way, such as to induce the illusion that it is relativistic.The only relativistic "contribution" is the Minkowsky ct^2 = ct^2 1 = 1 start. Crucially, the c + v (as measured by a relativistic stationary observer !) is artificially implanted through the back door, without any theoretical justification. The cheap clownery is eventually useless, because if you chose R tends to infinity, you measure c + v in a straight line.
The truth is that MMX used the wrong equation to compute the speed of the Earth around the Sun. They reported a speed of about 5 to 7 km/sec for the Earth around the Sun. When you assume that the ether medium does exist and light is a wave in the ether medium, as has long been expected, you must use the Superposition of Waves Principle, due to the opposing waves in the arms of the interferometer. Steven B. Bryant has done the work and uses the correct equation to compute the data from the MMX. MMX, when the data is properly computed, gives the expected speed of 30km/sec for the Earth around the Sun, as does the Miller experiment. Many experiments also reported moving fringes, like Miller and MMX, and a rough speed of around 6 km/sec using the wrong equation. @ @t
This is too many assumptions. This is all anyone knows, so you were taught EVERY word of that. So was I. But, with a little scientific skepticism, responsible thought may arise. If reflection is a new emission complete with its own velocity, then any drift effect would be erased by both beams being reflected in the normal axis. That's just one thought. Another thought is that light emission in a massless medium would have no drift velocity and would emanate symmetrically from the source (unless accelerated). I think it's both. They didn't rule this out, because relative time is what they wanted, and they would be sad to see it go. This whole situation is goofy. The only support that I saw for this farce was pion addition experiments, but even then, they assumed nothing could go faster than light when they calibrated their detectors. There is always that constant-light declaration first, even in muons entering the atmosphere. This experiment assumed that if light is constant, decays should reach lower altitudes, but if they are going faster than light, it's the same result. It's not time dilation, it's just going faster than you BELIEVE it can. Testing it by using it is not verifying that it's true, because it's a perfect analogy to something else. Humans are this stupid on a bandwagon.
It's funny all the equations and occum razor says the answer with the least variable is usual the correct one. If the earth is not moving there is no need for all that math. They literally proved the earth isn't moving and ya took the information and tried to morph it. But it doesn't fit. No matter what math u use it doesnt fit. The earth is stationary. It's that simple
Ac Duck that's true, no experiment has proved the earth moves, but there are experiments and evidence that prove earth is a sphere. Not saying you might think it's flat, but some may wrongly think it is
@@acduck2813 look at it this way, as the solar system rotates around the Earth, the Æther entrains to a stationary status at the surface of the earth, gaining altitude measurements of Æthrer drift ~5-8km/s account for about 5% increasing gain per meter. Æther has a slight mass and is attracted to the center of mass in 3-d cartesian representation x,y,z axis. mass and time slow towards the center of mass, creating a negative force at the surface, opposed by positive charge in atmosphere, that negative charge holds all matter on a sphere including water and atmospheric gases. The question is not whether the earth is flat, its whether the earth moves or sun and the solar system move.
@@paulpurdue5963 aires failure proved the earth is stationary as he did not need to move the beaker, after this Michelson/marly experiment to record the speed of the the earth from global calculation returned as a failure because they couldn't detect said spin rate... But they did detect a rate of something moving. This is thought to be ether. Einstien in his attempt to massage the finds said that neither experiment disproved the earth was spinning... He then introduced the theory of relativity. The Æether spelling of ether comes from this theory... Where Einstien abolished ether. Æther is meant to denote that it doesnt exist. Sagnac however proved once again ether did infact exist, this with the laser experiment showing light traveling thru the ether while have a move at different rates especially when moving. The mm experiment and sangac and aires are said to have no conclusion drawn or made. Some of these men where infact trying to prove the globe and couldnt. So refuse to state. What the science showed. So Ether, not Æther, existence itself is proof that the earth ia stationary. And the fact that you call it Æther shows the theory you are using is faulty to begin with. Reletivity has been debunk for 100 years. So has the spinning. Any pendulum proves this. The fact that large mass of water cannot stick to the bottom of anything is also proof. The horizon itself. We dont need highly complex equations to prove exactly what we see. An astrolabe itself proves earth is flat. The astrolabe works by placing the earth at the center, as a flat plane with every thing rotating around it. And polaris as the true center. They would look at the sky and not only know what time of day, but year, position in the world itself. The astrolabe is the worlds oldest super computer with over 1000 uses and can be made by an 11 yr old. And its over 1000 years old. No equations needed simply by your observation you can tell. Thats the genius of god! So complex yet so simple.
Listen here.
You are the first person who actually shows the simplest way to understand the math on MM.
Everyone else wants to show how good they are in Algebra.
Thanks for showing the step by step approach for guys like me who wasnt good with maths in school.
Why is the hypotenuse of the triangle at 3:00 equal to c*t? This seems to imply that the faster V is, then the longer it takes for the light beam to come back even though its traveling perpendicular to the ether wind. Just intuitively it doesn't make any sense to me?
(1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.
(2) The MMXs were never null.
(3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind.
(4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air.
Prof Reg Cahill explains.
Is Demjanov's research peer reviewed? There have been many recent peer reviewed papers on repeating MMX with the same results as MM
@@PhysicsHigh Demjanov is not peer reviewed.
Re the many recent peer reviewed papers repeating null results, send to me one at a time, & i will tear them to shreds (based mainly on the theories of Prof Reg Cahill).
I am very knowledgeable re two problems affecting oldendays MMXs, based on my own findings/discoveries, but that is advanced stuff, unlikely to come up here.
Anyhow, show me one peer review of any of Einstein's papers. No hurry.
@@PhysicsHigh Anyhow, show me one peer review of any of Einstein's papers. No hurry.
Which direction is the Aether wind in the HSC? Also thank you very much sir.
In addition to my four comments of 2 weeks ago. Michelson's & Miller's MMXs suffered from two spurious signals.
(5) Firstly a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that got larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).
(6) Secondly a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didnt mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to a change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being changed by the wind).
I can better explain all of this if anyone is interested.
How does water stick to the bottom of a ball?
@@acduck2813 Good question. Surface tension in water might be the key. Gerald Pollack explains how in most cases surface tension is due to a special phase of water which he calls EZ water.
I feel like you should have finished the proof that T_along >= T_across. Can be done as following:
So we've derived that T_along = (2dc)/(c^2-v^2) and that T_across = (2d)/(sqrt(c^2-v^2)).
But if you multiply T_across by sqrt(c^2-v^2)/sqrt(c^2-v^2) (to remove the square root in the denominator), you get T_across = (2d*sqrt(c^2-v^2))/(c^2-v^2).
So we're trying to prove that T_along = (2dc)/(c^2-v^2) >= T_across = (2d*sqrt(c^2-v^2))/(c^2-v^2). Or to put that another way, prove that c >= sqrt(c^2-v^2), since we can cancel out all the other pronumerals.
LHS = sqrt(c^2), [c >= 0 anyway, but I digress] which is larger than sqrt(c^2-v^2) when v != 0, and equal when v = 0, QED. It should be noted that v = 0 occurs when there is no aether wind, however.
So that's why T_along >= T_across. It wasn't exactly obvious enough to just say that the two forms provided in the video are "clearly not the same", and that doesn't even specify an inequality between the two. In fact, when v = 0, they actually *are* the same, so you were technically wrong.
I mean, at least you mostly showed why T_along >= T_across. Many textbooks just assumed that it's somehow a trivial statement (it isn't to me), which doesn't exactly help a student understand.
you are right - it isn't trivial. I could have done as you suggested - but you have now down it for me :D
The key though is that they are not the same, and such supports Michelson and Morley (incorrect) hypothesis.
Thanks for your feedback
Tyranny Takeover I think you're confusing what happens to the light that splits and travels across the aether (ie not *with* the aether). You say that it only travels at the speed of light, which is true, but there is also the supposed aether wind, so it has larger distance to travel. Imagine it as a plane travelling with a wind going North. If the plane was travelling West (ie across the aether), and wanted to return to the same starting spot, it would have to travel further than if there were no wind!
So yes, you're right about the cancelling out of the speeds travelling *along* the aether wind, but the experiment expected a difference in time because of the *across* ray having to travel further!
Also, I don't really understand what you mean by the last part, sorry! :)
Tyranny Takeover The distance doesn't change, I think I might have been too confusing, this has nothing to do with special relativity yet! :)
Try imagining the plane travelling across the aether. It starts and heads, say West. If there were no wind in any direction, it could just travel say 200km and turn around and another 200km later it would be back in the same spot.
However, there's a wind from the South, pushing the plane North with a velocity of say 20km/h. You can see that if the plane only travels west, the wind (vector addition!) will cause the plane to move in a North-West direction and on the return trip, North-East.
So the plane will definitely not return to the start position (which means the light ray won't be able to reach the half silvered mirror again.
So our plane must try to head South-West so that the wind pushing it North will cause the plane to return to the start position!
So if you this all out, you'll get a triangle like the one in the video, representing the velocity vectors. The hypotenuse is the light's velocity (which is c), another vector represents the aether wind (which is a variable v), and the last vector is the component vector (which is equal to sqrt(c^2-v^2) via Pythagoras). This just means that since the light ray is travelling at a diagonal, we need to find how fast it is moving only across the aether (not diagonally).
So essentially, there is no change in distances, no warping of space-time, the light ray just has to travel further because it's travelling along a diagonal.
Hope this helped (and hopefully the vector bit wasn't too confusing)!
Tyranny Takeover I don't see what you mean by measure a course change. The only light that could've reached the interferometer is light that followed this "changed path" anyway!
So since the times taken for light to go along the aether and across it (following the "changed path") are different, except when there is no aether wind as I proved in my original proof.
So therefore if the light rays didn't take the same time to reach the interferometer, this would mean a non-zero aether wind!
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with your "cancelling out" logic, it kind of does make sense. In the meantime, i.imgur.com/EbYAtMK.png is how my textbook explains it.
I take it that the Earth's rotation is the cause of the VT distance. That has to be a minuscule amount of travel distance, and of course times two. Yet the C+V and C-V will always be equal regardless of the eather wind direction. I don't see how this experiment can measure anything concerning the hypothesized aether.
Consider the case where V approaches C. To fraction d/(C+V) will then equal d/2C, however the fraction d/(C-V) will become very large and approach infinite. Intuitively this means that if the aether wind is just barely smaller then the speed of light, then to travel against the wind the light will take a very very long time, and even though the return trip is nearly instant the total time is still much larger then 2d/c. Also its not earths rotation causing the ether wind as much as the earths movement through space, around the sun, around the Milky Way, etc.
@@tobiasyoder I will need to consider your proposal further, which I have been already considering for years. Two beams of light going in opposite directions while both travailing together near the speed of light in one of the two directions can not be considered logically. They are both in the same frame of reference and time cannot be slower for one and not the other.
Nicely explained!
Good explanation sir
There can be another possibility. The velocity of the aether might be negligible as compared to the speed of light, thus no significant shift in time.
No, the interferometer had a sensibility of 1% of the wavelenth and the interference expected was 40%.
how much did the Earth move in the time it took the light to go from the center mirror to the perpendicular mirror and back? a fraction of an atom? maybe if it was on a turntable at the pole turning one revolution every 24 hours focus it to get a wave pattern then turned it 90%. well that I would like to see...
Both Michelson and Morley assumed that the speed of light is not altered upon reflection by a moving mirror. This critical error produced a small variation in the distance traveled by the light between mirrors in the rest frame of ether.
sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/speed-of-light
We came to the conclusion that the negative result of the M-M experiment is due to the coupling of the mass density of light with the density field emanating from the mass of the planet. Coupling that imposes the same speed of light in all directions of the horizontal plane and makes the principle of relativity work, which prohibits the determination of the state of motion of a system, through experiments carried out inside the system. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium, through which the light passes, is proven by Fizeau's experiment, which precisely verifies Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities. Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities results from the summation of the photon density with the density of the transparent medium, without any relativistic metaphysics.
Well, math. of the two directions 1 and 2 MM is in time: t1 = 2d/c and t2 = 2d/c => a zero result MM.
TO THE LIGHT THE OBSERVER IS ALWAYS AT REST.
If the light were a particle like throwing a ball while instead an airplane then you would be correct. However, light was thought to be a wave, so the speed of the light would purely be based on the medium. This means that the speed of the light *relative to the observer/mirror* would be 2d/(c+v) and 2d/(c-v).
The observer (Michelson) is always at rest (all other systems is always in motion). Speed c is the same in all direction. In physics the observer system is always the fundamental reference.@@tobiasyoder
it should work, regardless of the aether flow. If all other theories are correct, the speed of Earth alone would be more than sufficient to show fringes on the detector. M&M stated that in the original paper. But it didn't. But why it doesn't work? Using Ocam's razor, meaning the simplest solution is the most often the right one, these results suggest that Earth doesn't move at the speed proposed by astronomers, or maybe not at all. But this solution was unacceptable to "science circles" and still is, so Einstein developed complicated illogical solution to this problem that was very much welcomed by mentioned circles. I wonder why.
bruh
The major problem with their experiment is, if they were in a boat, in a very large whirlpool, and they were to throw a dabber off the side of the boat, the dabber and the boat would appear to not be moving in reference to each other, in spite of the fact that they are in actuality moving. If the Aether around the Earth was rotating around the Earth, with the Earth, and the Aether around the Sun was rotating around the Sun as well, (with the Aether of the Earth rotating as a smaller whirlpool within the larger whirlpool going around the sun), it would appear, like the dabber along side the boat, that the Aether was not moving at all.
Special Relativity still holds based on a mathematical prank . The relativistic dummy copy of the Sagnac formula is a shameless make up. It is the same v = Rw formula used by Sagnac, yet written in a funky way, such as to induce the illusion that it is relativistic.The only relativistic "contribution" is the Minkowsky ct^2 = ct^2 1 = 1 start. Crucially, the c + v (as measured by a relativistic stationary observer !) is artificially implanted through the back door, without any theoretical justification. The cheap clownery is eventually useless, because if you chose R tends to infinity, you measure c + v in a straight line.
The truth is that MMX used the wrong equation to compute the speed of the Earth around the Sun.
They reported a speed of about 5 to 7 km/sec for the Earth around the Sun.
When you assume that the ether medium does exist and light is a wave in the ether medium, as has long been expected, you must use the Superposition of Waves Principle, due to the opposing waves in the arms of the interferometer.
Steven B. Bryant has done the work and uses the correct equation to compute the data from the MMX.
MMX, when the data is properly computed, gives the expected speed of 30km/sec for the Earth around the Sun, as does the Miller experiment. Many experiments also reported moving fringes, like Miller and MMX, and a rough speed of around 6 km/sec using the wrong equation.
@
@t
This is too many assumptions. This is all anyone knows, so you were taught EVERY word of that. So was I. But, with a little scientific skepticism, responsible thought may arise. If reflection is a new emission complete with its own velocity, then any drift effect would be erased by both beams being reflected in the normal axis. That's just one thought. Another thought is that light emission in a massless medium would have no drift velocity and would emanate symmetrically from the source (unless accelerated). I think it's both. They didn't rule this out, because relative time is what they wanted, and they would be sad to see it go. This whole situation is goofy. The only support that I saw for this farce was pion addition experiments, but even then, they assumed nothing could go faster than light when they calibrated their detectors. There is always that constant-light declaration first, even in muons entering the atmosphere. This experiment assumed that if light is constant, decays should reach lower altitudes, but if they are going faster than light, it's the same result. It's not time dilation, it's just going faster than you BELIEVE it can. Testing it by using it is not verifying that it's true, because it's a perfect analogy to something else. Humans are this stupid on a bandwagon.
It's funny all the equations and occum razor says the answer with the least variable is usual the correct one.
If the earth is not moving there is no need for all that math. They literally proved the earth isn't moving and ya took the information and tried to morph it. But it doesn't fit. No matter what math u use it doesnt fit. The earth is stationary. It's that simple
Ac Duck that's true, no experiment has proved the earth moves, but there are experiments and evidence that prove earth is a sphere. Not saying you might think it's flat, but some may wrongly think it is
@@paulpurdue5963 the horizon would like to say hello.
Also large bodies of water cannot stick to the bottom of an object
@@acduck2813 look at it this way, as the solar system rotates around the Earth, the Æther entrains to a stationary status at the surface of the earth, gaining altitude measurements of Æthrer drift ~5-8km/s account for about 5% increasing gain per meter. Æther has a slight mass and is attracted to the center of mass in 3-d cartesian representation x,y,z axis. mass and time slow towards the center of mass, creating a negative force at the surface, opposed by positive charge in atmosphere, that negative charge holds all matter on a sphere including water and atmospheric gases. The question is not whether the earth is flat, its whether the earth moves or sun and the solar system move.
@@paulpurdue5963 aires failure proved the earth is stationary as he did not need to move the beaker, after this Michelson/marly experiment to record the speed of the the earth from global calculation returned as a failure because they couldn't detect said spin rate... But they did detect a rate of something moving.
This is thought to be ether.
Einstien in his attempt to massage the finds said that neither experiment disproved the earth was spinning... He then introduced the theory of relativity.
The Æether spelling of ether comes from this theory... Where Einstien abolished ether. Æther is meant to denote that it doesnt exist.
Sagnac however proved once again ether did infact exist, this with the laser experiment showing light traveling thru the ether while have a move at different rates especially when moving.
The mm experiment and sangac and aires are said to have no conclusion drawn or made. Some of these men where infact trying to prove the globe and couldnt. So refuse to state. What the science showed.
So Ether, not Æther, existence itself is proof that the earth ia stationary. And the fact that you call it Æther shows the theory you are using is faulty to begin with. Reletivity has been debunk for 100 years. So has the spinning.
Any pendulum proves this.
The fact that large mass of water cannot stick to the bottom of anything is also proof.
The horizon itself.
We dont need highly complex equations to prove exactly what we see.
An astrolabe itself proves earth is flat.
The astrolabe works by placing the earth at the center, as a flat plane with every thing rotating around it. And polaris as the true center.
They would look at the sky and not only know what time of day, but year, position in the world itself.
The astrolabe is the worlds oldest super computer with over 1000 uses and can be made by an 11 yr old. And its over 1000 years old.
No equations needed simply by your observation you can tell.
Thats the genius of god! So complex yet so simple.
@@paulpurdue5963 the earth has already been proving stationary. And flat.
What? Hee?