The fundamental error of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Special relativity is wrong.

''The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the luminiferous aether,[A 1] a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by American physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year.[1]

Michelson and Morley's interferometric setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an annular trough of mercury

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter, including their laboratory, through the luminiferous aether, or "aether wind" as it was sometimes called. The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against some aether theories, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out motion against an aether.[A''

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment


So the whole MM experiment is based on the premise that if the earth is moving through a stationary aether than the speed of light should change depending on the direction in which earth is moving. This is a completelly false and misleading assumption, which shows that these relative scientists really have no ideea how waves propagate in a medium.

If light is a wave, you can't add the velocity of the wave to that of the source, as these relative scientists expected. It will still travel with the speed of light regardless how fast or slow the source is moving relative to the aether medium. Just like a sound wave does. The speed of sound does not increase if the speed of the source increases relative to the air medium.

If a speeding train horns while it passes a station, the people on the station dont measure an increased speed of sound of the horn. What they measure is a an increased or decreased frequency (and wavelength) due to the Doppler effect. The speed is exactly the same.

Michelson Morrey experiment makes the false assumption that because the earth is moving, the speed of light should somehow be different in the earth’s direction of movement compared to a perpendicular direction. This is completelly false if light is a wave in a stationary aether, which was the main assumption of the experiment. It will travel at exactly the same speed regardless of the speed or orientation of the source. So there will be no change in the speed of light in either direction. Which is exactly what they seen: no difference. How does that disprove that aether exists ?! It is completelly illogical to draw this conclusion, yet here we have dozens of the worlds brightest scientists, many Nobel laureates, behaving like utter and complete fools who make the most illogical assumption and then based on it misinterpret their experiments in exactly the opposite way in which they should be interpretated.

What is truly incredible is that no one has seen their fundamental error before, including the greatest minds of science like ...none, and that this stupid experiment is considered for more than a century by all these relative scientists as the ultimate proof that aether does not exist. When it should have been obvious for anyone who knows basic wave physics that  Michelson Morley made a fundamental error in the very premise of the experiment, which could only lead to an erroneus conclusion.

The reason why the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference is because the medium of light, aether, is the only frame of reference for light waves, and the speed of light simply does not depend to any other frames. The speed of light only depends to ITS MEDIUM, which is the AETHER, and light only moves relative to its own fixed frame of reference. That’s why an observer will always measure the speed of light waves in a 'vacuum' which is aether to be the same, regardless if he is on a rocket or on a planet.


And no, a source moving through a static medium is not the same as a medium moving though a static source. This is just illogical equivalency. If a boat moves through a static sea, its not the same as if the whole sea was moving through a static boat. All these relative scientists who think like this are simply illogical and prove once more than Einstein was right...when he said that human stupidity is infinite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of lig
Read more

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Image
The theory of general relativity (which is the basis of the big-bang theory) is wrong, and I say this because, besides the fact that Einstein abberates that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space and time, which is an absolute non-sense, not relative, and attributes geodesics to space and time, which is absolutely illogical because space does not have a surface (a geodesic is by definition related to a surface), and time does not have a surface either (the 'surface of time' is an aberration, as well as the 'surface of space', respectively the 'surface of space-time'), the experiments that have allegedly confirmed it are extremely illogical, if not downright stupid. There are three main tests of general relativity, and all of them disprove general relativity if they are interpreted correctly. I will first reffer to the one in which the Nobel laureates, scientists Pound and Rebka, used a Helium bag and air to demonstrate that gravity produces the change
Read more