Jump to content
Michaeltannoury

MM experiment null result is not an accurate claim

Recommended Posts

I verified the MM all results found in wikipedia all sizes of apparatus  up to 32 m of arm lenth 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

I found that based on the motion of the earth the experiments can never detect the eather  

Even with a higher velocity that now we know earth is moving at (around it center , around the sun , and around the center of the galaxi .. )

A much bigger arms for Michelson–Morley (MM) apparatus is needed 

Please check out my calculation i verified it ten times 

https://www.facebook.com/AL.TANNOURY/posts/10159150148095532

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between your calculation and the one M-M used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have posted 5 photos of handwritten script without any explanation.

Whose script is this and where did it come from please?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

swansont

the calculation  methodologie is the same as the one performed in MM 

Instead of considering a velocity of ether 30kps (earth around sun )  and getting the fringe dimension 

I supposed a velocity of the earth surface around its center and got a fringe dimension undetectable by all the used MM experiment 

I verified the fringe dimension for the earth surface velocity and it gave me fringe dimensions  that are not detectable even with the largest 28 m MM apparatus diameter size

and in fact if one looks to Wikipedia link MM results were not null but very small values 

This  would suggests a very small movement of the ether near the earth surface  

and would not conclude the abscence of ether 

 

studiot

This is my verification 

Explanation :

  • Velocity of the earth around the sun = 30 km/s
  • Velocity of the surface of the earth around its center is 450 meter/second (at the equator)  
  • Velocity of the sun and earth around the center of the galaxy is 250 km/s

 

MM was looking to detect the ether by detecting its relative motion to the earth or the opposite (which is the same)  

at the time He considered the  center of his reference as the  sun and was looking for to detect the 30 km/s (which is the speed of the earth around the sun ) 

MM experiment couldn't detect this velocity.  

now we know that Velocity of the sun and earth around the center of the galaxy is 250 km/s and the galaxy is also moving toward Andromeda 

so if one would want to consider a static ether in which the light moves he would want to look to detect much larger speeds.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michaeltannoury said:

Instead of considering a velocity of ether 30kps (earth around sun )  and getting the fringe dimension 

I supposed a velocity of the earth surface around its center and got a fringe dimension undetectable by all the used MM experiment 

So why do you think it is reasonable to ignore the motion of the Earth around the Sun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Michaeltannoury said:

studiot

This is my verification 

Explanation :

  • Velocity of the earth around the sun = 30 km/s
  • Velocity of the surface of the earth around its center is 450 meter/second (at the equator)  
  • Velocity of the sun and earth around the center of the galaxy is 250 km/s

 

MM was looking to detect the ether by detecting its relative motion to the earth or the opposite (which is the same)  

at the time He considered the  center of his reference as the  sun and was looking for to detect the 30 km/s (which is the speed of the earth around the sun ) 

MM experiment couldn't detect this velocity.  

now we know that Velocity of the sun and earth around the center of the galaxy is 250 km/s and the galaxy is also moving toward Andromeda 

so if one would want to consider a static ether in which the light moves he would want to look to detect much larger speeds.

Thank you for replying to my question.

 

Except that it was not a reply to my question.

 

You told me a lot of things I didn't ask for.

 

But you did not tell me the one and only thing I did ask about.

 

I skimmed through the images you posted and asked who wrote them before I read them in detail and comment on them.

 

Is that too much to ask?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 studiot :

The first thing i said  those are my verification of the formula which means i wrote them.

You said " You have posted 5 photos of handwritten script without any explanation. "  . 

and when i added some Explanation , you  nagged about it saying  " You told me a lot of things I didn't ask for" 

Well you are confusing me !

 

Strange

So why do you think it is reasonable to ignore the motion of the Earth around the Sun?

First i didn't want to ignore it , but if one don't want to ignore the motion of the earth around the sun , then one should not ignore the motion of the solar constellation around the center of the milky-way galaxy.

And one should not ignore the motion of the milky-way galaxy toward Andromeda.

So one should then expect larger relative motion and stronger ether winds affecting the light trajectory

Since this wind is not detected then either there is no ether at all ,  

or there is an ether that moves with the moving masses (dragged by the masses)  and  the remaining relative speed between the mass and the surrounding ether surrounding it is minor. 

that's why i supposed that the ether near the surface at the earth is rotating at its speed (so the ether is not static near earths surface in relative to  an absolute frame of reference reference) .

 as per the previously used MM apparatus dimensions , they can't detect this small relative motion of the ether  near  the masses if it existed  and had such property

Bottom line is that this experiment cannot confirm its nonexistence. 

Edited by Michaeltannoury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Michaeltannoury said:

So one should then expect larger relative motion and stronger ether winds affecting the light trajector

Then why didn't you use a larger value, instead of smaller one?

Quote

Bottom line is that this experiment cannot confirm its nonexistence. 

It cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. But other experiments can (such as Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell). And all the tests of Lorentz Invariance. You are fighting a battle that was lost a long time ago.

Next up, phlogiston?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

 I supposed a velocity of the earth surface around its center 

Why would you do that?

The reason that the 30 km/s number is used is because that's what is observed as the speed in stellar aberration. IOW, it's a number that comes from an experiment that the M-M experiment was trying to confirm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly cannot read his images to even attempt to verify the calcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, studiot said:

I skimmed through the images you posted and asked who wrote them before I read them in detail and comment on them.

Is that too much to ask?

20 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

Please check out my calculation i verified it ten times 

On this point I am with Michaeltannoury. There didn't seem to be any ambiguity in his OP about authorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michaeltannoury said:

 studiot :

The first thing i said  those are my verification of the formula which means i wrote them.

You said " You have posted 5 photos of handwritten script without any explanation. "  . 

and when i added some Explanation , you  nagged about it saying  " You told me a lot of things I didn't ask for" 

Well you are confusing me !

Once again, thank you for responding and clearing up my question.

You are new here, did you read the rules?

You posted a hypothesis and provided a link to Wikipedia for background.

You then specifically asked us to check your calculations in English that made me suspect that this is not your first language. By itself, that would be just fine but,

You then supplied some images of partial calculations in English and a link to Facebook.
The images look as if they may be ancient or new i.e. a quote from someone else or your own.
Again either is fine so long as it is clear.

For your information, I don't do Facebook and it is against the rules of this site to expect me to look there for the full treatment.

 

As I said, I glanced through them and this phrase caught my eye

"c = Celerity of light at the absolute reference frame"

 

So my first question is

What do you mean by this?

 

It is definitely non standard usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Strange

"It cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. But other experiments can (such as Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell). And all the tests of Lorentz Invariance. You are fighting a battle that was lost a long time ago"

 

Thank you for your reply . I will check the Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell  and the tests of lorentz invariance  test to see how they disprove an ether that moves with the earth 

 

studiot

Thank you for the clarification. Yes i am new . I just read the rules .

yes English is not my first language and not even my second . I apologize  if my hand writing was not clear or i didn't make my post clear enough 

Ok so facebook link is not allowed. How Can i remove it now ?

regarding c i meant the velocity of light measured in a static frame which is the absolute reference frame  

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michaeltannoury said:

regarding c i meant the velocity of light measured in a static frame which is the absolute reference frame

How would you detect this absolute reference frame? 

Or, if it is easier, how would you measure your speed compared this absolute frame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can read your maths, can you type them out.

What form of aether are you trying to detect with your modified michelson morley experiment. Ie are you assuming the earth is moving through the aether, or the aether is moving with the earth or contracting towards the earth etc. How will your test be sensitive enough to detect a movement in the aether if it exists. How would the orientation of your michelson morley device affect what kind of aether  movement you would detect. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Strange

Thank you for your questions You have a good point here

Handy andy

Thank you It is the same method of calculation for the MM experiment as described in  the the WIKI link I posted .

I just checked for a reduced eather velocity of and checked the fringe width.

In conclusion i reached what  Strange quoted  "MM experiment cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. "

I didn't change or modify the MM experiment itself 

I've been reading the past few days  about Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell experiments mentioned by Strange and  i poped up on  a hypothesis called Eather drag  that i seam to explain a  slower ether velocity near earth  . But not yet sure what about this theory. Regarding your other question I have no answer I will get back once i find something .

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with you people? Why the obsession with aether? There never was any evidence for it. It was always unnecessary and impossible. You might as well look for evidence of angels or invisible pink flying unicorns.  Just get a life. Get interested in science instead. Learn some science. 

At least phlogiston was a valid scientific theory. It had evidence. It could be quantified and tested. 

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why the obsession with aether? There never was any evidence for it.

Is this entirely true? I understood that the reason for proposing the aether was that those waves of which we then had knowledge required a medium through which to propagate. It was therefore logical to suspect that there must be some medium through which light propagated. An argument that could be used at the time might have run like, "All the waves we are aware of propagate through a medium. What evidence do you have that light is an exception to this established rule?"

None of this in any way supports the continued argument for an aether, but it seems to me it was, for a time, valid and reasonable to suspect one existed. The alternative appears to be an implicit assertion that Michelson and Morely were fools or pseudoscientists for attempting to demonstrate the motion of the Earth through the aether. I may well be mistaken in this perception, but I cannot presently see where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

 

In conclusion i reached what  Strange quoted  "MM experiment cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. "

I didn't change or modify the MM experiment itself 

The MM experiment didn't have to, since Bradley's observation of Stellar aberration ~150 years earlier had already established that we are moving. This is something that aether proponents never seem to take into account. The MM experiment was not designed to answer the question of if we were moving through the aether — there was never a question that we were. It was to confirm Bradley's measurement.

So what one has to do is explain aberration. And that's the problem. A medium can't explain both. We can't be both stationary and moving with respect to an aether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Einstein has remarked his general theory is unthinkable without an aether. Dirac noted, that quantum field theory was a particular type of aether theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Also Einstein has remarked his general theory is unthinkable without an aether. Dirac noted, that quantum field theory was a particular type of aether theory.

But neither of those were the luminiferous aether. (That would be the electromagnetic field.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 1:33 PM, swansont said:

The MM experiment didn't have to, since Bradley's observation of Stellar aberration ~150 years earlier had already established that we are moving. This is something that aether proponents never seem to take into account. The MM experiment was not designed to answer the question of if we were moving through the aether — there was never a question that we were. It was to confirm Bradley's measurement.

So what one has to do is explain aberration. And that's the problem. A medium can't explain both. We can't be both stationary and moving with respect to an aether.

Maybe i am fighting a  war that is lost long time ago but i would like to loose the battle my self.

I checked about stellar aberration but i still don't get it all. 

from what i understood Bradley only detected the aberration caused by the rotation of the earth orround the sun 

does the movement detected by Bradley include all the other aberrations caused by the movement of the earth in the universe ?

does the aberration seen includes the one caused by earth's rotation around itself? or around the center of the galaxy ?

if all the above  movement combined wouldn't the total aberration of star lights as seen from the earth be complex to be explained only by the rotation of the earth around the sun ?

did people 150 years ago know that the solar system is moving around the center of the milky way ?

excuse me swansont  for my ignorance about many things in this domain , i am just trying to understand more what is happening.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The motion round the galaxy isn't relevant because the other star would be following the same motion.

As the observations were made of the same star from the same place, the motion due to the rotation of the Earth would be roughly the same (and is much smaller than the orbital speed, anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

Maybe i am fighting a  war that is lost long time ago but i would like to loose the battle my self.

I checked about stellar aberration but i still don't get it all. 

from what i understood Bradley only detected the aberration caused by the rotation of the earth orround the sun 

Revolution around the sun.

13 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

does the movement detected by Bradley include all the other aberrations caused by the movement of the earth in the universe ?

does the aberration seen includes the one caused by earth's rotation around itself? or around the center of the galaxy ?

Not relevant for these observations, as already noted.

13 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

if all the above  movement combined wouldn't the total aberration of star lights as seen from the earth be complex to be explained only by the rotation of the earth around the sun ?

did people 150 years ago know that the solar system is moving around the center of the milky way ?

excuse me swansont  for my ignorance about many things in this domain , i am just trying to understand more what is happening.

The bottom line is that motion had already been measured. That's what M-M were attempting to confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.