The MM experiment is wrong!

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

  1. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Quantum gravity might prove you wrong on that one day if somebody figures out how it works. But the correspondence principle will apply and relativity will be recoverable from it in some limit obviously because it's incredibly well tested so has to be nearly right and we're definitely not going back to some dumbass copy of the discredited ether dragging hypothesis.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    11,637
    Newtonian gravity is still taught and I imagine relativity will also be taught in the future even with a quantum gravity theory. I agree that crack pot ether dragging ain't going to cut it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    This is not a justification but your opinion, your belief. The way to avoid a real debate is to give a concise opinion, or write a library of text. Einstein did the latter. I ask you to write 12 sentences for the sake of a normal debate. This should include physical reasoning and logic. I'll take that as a response or opinion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    This was for everyone, but I wrote about a Hungarian professor who is thought by others to understand relativity, lecture on it, and publish on it. I wrote that he is sincere because he admits that he only feels he understands it for 15 days of the year and not the rest of the year. I think this last period of enlightenment on his part suspects something fundamentally wrong. In my opinion, relativity makes no sense, it is wrong. What does not make sense cannot be understood!


    I'm sorry for my 62 posts, but you asked me twice as many questions and teased me, so I had to reply.

    I will post a small essay with many references that refute it. One example:The problem was compounded, however, because SR was also highly problematic, while GR was almost like an idea linked to two physical effects that were only the same in their unit of measurement: (kgm/s2) On these uncertain foundations Einstein placed a huge superstructure, such as the curvature of space, the cancellation of the graviton, the bending of light and the orbit of the planet due to the curvature of space, etc. These can be shown one by one not to exist, or to be replaced by physical phenomena known for a long time.
    You can view the rest in a separate comment. Title: Einstein's life work

    But you counted it, I gave 62 comments, that's 62 proofs.
     
  8. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Einstein's life work


    1. The upper limit of the speed of light

    Little Einstein had heard about the speed of light and its extremely high speed as a child. He imagined (1893) that he is running fast after a wave of light, and when he caught up with it he saw frozen waves. But that is impossible, he told himself- so the speed of light is impossible. But that is impossible, he said to himself, so the speed of light cannot be reached. It's a pity that at this point he lost his courage and didn't try to run even faster in his mind. Then he would have seen with his mind's eye that the waves were lagging behind him. This would have shown him that there was no limit or limit to what he could deduce from this thought experiment.


    The speed of light is extremely high, 300,000 kilometers per second. It was inconceivable to the child Einstein that this speed could be surpassed by anything or anyone. Unfortunately, this speed limit was so deeply "frozen" in his consciousness that he later took it as a trivial fact and incorporated it asapostulate into SR, the special theory of relativity.

    It is now clearly established that there is nospeed of lightlimit. Astronomers, for example, are busily measuring the redshift of light from quasars.


    They use the number Z to indicate the number of times the speed of light that the observed object is moving away. Nowadays they are around Z = 11, which is 11 times the speed of light. Then there is the modern Big Bangtheory. It claims with conviction that the explosion sphere was at first the size of an atom, grew to the size of an orange in the blink of an eye, and then grew to the size of our solar system in two minutes. If you think about it a bit, especially if you do the maths, you will immediately see that the speed of the explosion is many times the speed of light. (Just look it up: the solar system is about 2 light days across.)

    In a laboratory experiment in 2000, Wang detected a speed of light 330 times faster than the currently accepted value

    1. Speed is relative, 1905 . . .

    2. Centuries ago, the naturalist Galileo pondered the question of whether speed was absolute or relative. He carried out some desperately inaccurate experiments to see if an absolute system could be found in which we could eventually measure absolute speed. (Nota bene, there is such a possibility!) This strange idea was certainly confirmed in Einstein's mind by the M-M experiment of 1897. The Michelsons' famous experiment seemed to be a failure of theoretical physics and logic because it showed light to have the same speed for all stationary and moving objects. As a way out, it flashed into Einstein's mind that if he rejected the possibility of aether, the fixed point, then the absolute speed, which can be handled with high priority, would also disappear. And relative benchmarks can be varied until the ground slips from under the feet of common sense. Finally, logic gives up solving the problem.
    Modern experiments have shown, however, that for light, the Earth's surface and the nearby aether that adheres to it are such a fixed point. The misinterpretation originated from the interpretation of the Earth's surface as moving in an infinite sea of aether. It does not because it moves with the Earth near the surface. Experimental verification of this claim can be found here!


    3. On the roaming of particles 1905

    When a drop of ink is put into a glass of water, the ink particles spread out over time and fill the whole glass. We now know that the ink particles are pushed around by the running water molecules, but at that time neither the concept of thermal movement nor the molecule existed. The grain is hit by pulses from all sides, and these show short-term fluctuations. Therefore, the particle slowly migrates out of position amidst uncertain back-and-forth motions. Einstein calculated the characteristic parameters for this using statistical mathematics in 1905.


    4. The photoelectric phenomenon 1905

    The concept of the photon (the spherical photon) was coined by Einstein and introduced into physics. According to this theory, electrons leave the surface of metal because the energy of a photon of blue light is just enough to knock an electron out of the shell of a zinc atom. It does not react to red light, he said, because its photons do not reach the energy threshold of any intense beam of light. (He was wrong about this because intense red laser light also produces the effect.) The idea was flawed, but it was a forward-looking one. The lion's share of the work was done by Philip Lénárt (Hu), who carried out the experiments for 2 years, but Einstein put the finishing touches to the process with two months of work. For this, he was awarded the Nobel Prize.


    5. Special relativity SR, 1905

    Einstein based his theory of special relativity on two postulates and two initial assumptions. To the speed of light limit (1) and the relative speeds (2).

    Both of his assumptions were flawed so a series of further compensating errors and well-intentioned logical miscalculations were then required to make the result at making it look right. The internal problems of the theory are shown by logical inconsistencies and erroneous predictions

    Ad 1: the speed of light depends on the energy level of the environment, so it has a variable value.

    Ad 2:The principle of relative speeds creates another insoluble problem. If we have two bodies and a relative velocity V, then our solution is bivalent because the vectors vA and vB are in opposite directions. This is a hiding error. However, if we consider three or 4 bodies, the number of "solutions" increases rapidly. Then the number of velocities becomes 6 or 24, and here we can be scared of which are real and which are not. However, to avoid tedious thinking, most people (Einstein included) are led to believe the superficial answer without criticism: 2 bodies, and one relative velocity. Thus both postulates are problematic, and the result is a flawed theory.


    6. The theory of general relativity- GR

    After Einstein had completed his theory of special relativity, he felt that it covered too narrow a field of physics. It only dealt with uniform motion in a straight line and predicted practical changes only near the speed of light. But he noticed that gravity and acceleration were strongly similar and so he set out to combine them. He used the example of traveling in an elevator, where the passenger feels a definite loss of gravity when he accelerates downwards. The GR theory, completed by 1915, thus incorporated gravity and acceleration, while SR remained in it as a basis. But it retains the most fundamental pillar, that there is a void between bodies, so the existence of aether is not allowed. Another unclear concept, that of the fabric (spatial web) of space, is prominent in his reasoning.


    The problem was compounded, however, because SR was also highly problematic, while GR was almost like an idea linked to two physical effects that were only the same in their unit of measurement: (kgm/s2) On these uncertain foundations Einstein placed a huge superstructure, such as the curvature of space, the cancellation of the graviton, the bending of light and the orbit of the planet due to the curvature of space, etc. These can be shown one by one not to exist, or to be replaced by physical phenomena known for a long time.


    7. E = mc2, 1905

    E=mc2 is perhaps the most important equation in science, but certainly the most famous. Many great physicists before Einstein had already tried to derive the well-known formula and came up with almost the same result. First among them was Lorentz, whose result 10 years earlier was E=mc1.98. Einstein himself modified it five times, but only his 1905 and 1946 papers are still in the public domain.

    The problem with the derivation is that it uses formulas that originally applied to light, not matter. It is true that Einstein also starts with light rays and the energy balance of a radiating body (a luminous rock). He assumes that the energy radiated is the same whether measured from a stationary or a moving coordinate system. Surprisingly, Einstein's chain of hard-to-follow reasoning eventually yields the right result, that the energy content of rock of mass m is mc2.

    He arrives at his goal unexpectedly, meanwhile making some conceptual and logical mistakes that do not always compensate for each other. The derivation is overcomplicated and contains unnecessary loops. Pongyola's style has hidden the inadequacy of the paper from most experts. In other words, it lacks a traceable process of proof itself, although the intended result is produced.
    continued at point 8
     
  9. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Continue

    8. Elimination of aether


    Even the ancient Greeks realized that the four basic elements (earth, water, air, fire) that make up the universe were not enough. There must also be a fifth, which creates the link between the other 4 elements and the bodies. This invisible, volatile substance is called aether (ether). It fills space, like a sea of air, but bigger, infinitely bigger. For physicists, it was a trivially existing entity until 1905. They had already measured quite a few of its physical parameters.


    This is when Einstein and his theory of relativity came into play. The latter did not fit with the etheric sea of absolute calm. So Einstein slowly began to eliminate the ether from the realm of existing entities. "My theory does not need the ether," he said. That was reason enough because the scientific community had no better idea to solve the depressing M-M paradox. So they increasingly accepted Einstein's abstract theory and let the aether go to waste.


    By scrubbing out the aether, Einstein dug a very big and very deep hole in the highway of scientific progress. The vanguard drove into it, but now everyone is in the pit.

    But this pit is not a good place! You can dig deeper, scrape the sides - but you can't get out. It is a mystical place, very difficult to find your way around. Abstraction takes physics in the direction of abstraction, but its most striking flaw is that it conflicts with quantum theory.





    9 Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921

    After the successful verification of the theory of general relativity in 1919, it was a matter of public opinion that the Nobel Prize was a must. However, the President of the Swedish Academy, Arrhenius, was dismayed because he could not understand and logically put Einsetien's theory together. (This is still the case today, as no one has been able to understand and logically put relativity together.)

    Einstein was on a lecture tour in Japan in 1920 and was not able to accept the prize until early 1921. Arrhenius continued to hold to his original opinion, and so in the Academic justification it was not the theory of relativity that was named, but the un photo effect. But this was the subject of Philip Lénárt (Hu). By the way, Arrhenius was an excellent scientist, he created the theory of Panspermia, according to which life originated on planets billions of years earlier, and the seeds of life were transported to the Earth's surface by comets.


    10. The curved space-time

    While working on GR, Einstein obtained a numerical value for the bending of a light beam due to the gravitational effect of the Sun. This value was twice the previous one. In 1919, it was experimentally confirmed, but the physical cause of the 0.877-arcsecond excess deflection remained unanswered. Einstein then came up with a very surprising, abstract, even heretical theory that the other half of the double curvature was caused by space (empty nothing).


    11. Cosmological constant 1923...
    ....
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    No relativity is not a belief, it is science.
    You want me to write 12 sentences describing relativity? Why would I waste my time doing that, you can look it up on google.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    'This comment shows you don't have a clue about science let alone understand relativity.
    That is a startling stupid comment, even for a anti-relativity crank. You are a waste of time...
     
    exchemist likes this.
  12. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    For the umpteenth bloody time this stuff is all set out in text books that you apparently can't be bothered to read. Why is that?
    Then you need to study it properly because it's incredibly simple and easy to understand once you let go of your Newtonian prejudices.
    But you never reply with any substance just vague waffle about how you don't understand relativity. That's your problem because there are plenty of people who do.
    And I have 290 posts so my proof is nearly five times stronger than yours and therefore you are wrong. Or else post count isn't a measure of rigour.
    This is wrong because the point is not that you can't have frozen waves but that Maxwell's equations won't let you have frozen electromagnetic waves so either Maxwell's equations or some other part of physics was wrong.
    This is more garbage based off your lack of understanding of the problem of electromagnetism.
    This is just a lie.
    You are taking simple results from special relativity and expecting them to apply in general relativity which is as stupid as arguing that it's impossible to travel from the north pole down the Greenwich meridian to the equator then ninety degrees round the equator and back to the pole because the angles in the triangle don't sum to 180.
    So you don't understand the difference between phase and group velocity either. All Wang et al did was set up something like a Mexican wave in a football stadium which can go as fast as you like because nothing is actually propagating so I mean it's a really impressive experiment but you don't understand physics if you think it contradicts relativity. The abstract itself even says that [t]he observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality, being a direct consequence of classical interference between its different frequency components in an anomalous dispersion region.
    No they haven't and in fact as I have told you several times ether dragging theories have been experimentally DISproven many years ago. Why do you never respond to this point?
    Where?
    Another claim without proof.
    You STILL have not shown any logical inconsistencies.
    This is nonsense.
    This is nonsense.
    This is false special relativity can deal with accelerated motion and the fact that you think otherwise tells me you've never read a proper textbook on relativity.
    This is a gross misunderstanding common in people who have only read poor popularisations of the theory and never read an actual textbook where the equivalence principle is set out properly.
    It's a cliche that is prominent in lame popularisations of relativity but it is absolutely nowhere in any formal treatment of the subject.
    It's pretty well known that Einstein's attempts to derive \(E=mc^2\) and I think there are about twenty attempts were never wholly satisfactory I mean even the Wikipedia article discusses it.
     
  13. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    There are two key points in my last post so I'll state them clearly here:

    I have repeatedly told you that ether dragging hypotheses were experimentally falsified. Why do you never respond to this point?

    You repeatedly claim that there are logical inconsistencies in relativity but you never show any. Why not? No you whining about not liking the principle of relativity or the invariance of the speed of light is not a logical inconsistency in relativity it's just you whining.
     
  14. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Anyway Tushey's obviously too incompetent to do this or even open a textbook and read this so I'm gonna write out the Michelson Morley experiment in relativity. My old prof's hint for doing any textbook relativity problem is that you just
    1 work out all the frames where anything in your experiment is at rest
    2 and then you list all the interesting events
    3 and you'll find it's easy to write down the coordinates of those events in at least one of those frames
    4 and then you use the Lorentz transforms to write down the coordinates in every frame
    5 and finally you pick whichever frame you want to write a description in and look at the coordinates.

    So we start in the rest frame \(S\) of the interferometer and we say that the beam splitter is at \(x=y=0\) and the interferometer arms are length \(L\) and lie at an angle \(\theta\) anticlockwise of the \(x\) and \(y\) axes so the mirrors are at \(x_1=L\cos\theta\), \(y_1=L\sin\theta\) and \(x_2=-L\sin\theta\), \(y_2=L\cos\theta\). A pulse of light leaves the beam splitter at \(t=0\) so arrives at the mirrors at \(t=L/c\) and returns to the beam splitter at \(t=2L/c\) so in this frame we have
    \[
    \begin{array}{|l|c|c|c|}
    \hline
    &x&y&t\\
    \hline
    \text{Light leaves beam splitter}&0&0&0\\
    \text{Light reaches mirror 1}&L\cos\theta&L\sin\theta&L/c\\
    \text{Light reaches mirror 2}&-L\sin\theta&L\cos\theta&L/c\\
    \text{Light returns to beam splitter}&0&0&2L/c\\
    \hline
    \end{array}
    \]
    To figure out what it looks like in a frame \(S'\) where the apparatus is moving like in the solar system rest frame all you do is use the Lorentz transforms to calculate the coordinates in the other frame. The transforms are easy they are \(x'=\gamma(x-vt)\), \(y'=y\), \(t'=\gamma(t-\frac{v}{c^2}x)\) where \(\gamma=(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})^{-1/2}\) so you can check my maths yourself if you want.
    \[
    \begin{array}{|l|c|c|c|}
    \hline
    &x'&y'&t'\\
    \hline
    \text{Light leaves beam splitter}&0&0&0\\
    \text{Light reaches mirror 1}&\gamma L(\cos\theta-v/c)&L\sin\theta&\gamma L(1-\frac{v}{c}\cos\theta)/c\\
    \text{Light reaches mirror 2}&-\gamma L(\sin\theta+v/c)&L\cos\theta&\gamma L(1+\frac{v}{c}\sin\theta)/c\\
    \text{Light returns to beam splitter}&-2 \gamma Lv/c&0&2\gamma L/c\\
    \hline
    \end{array}
    \]
    You can easily check that light travels at \(c\) in this frame too by looking at the distances and times between events like for example the light travelling from the beam splitter to mirror 1 which travels a distance \(\gamma L(\cos\theta-v/c)\) in the \(x'\) direction and a distance \(L\sin\theta\) in the \(y'\) direction in the lapse of time \(\gamma L(1-\frac{v}{c}\cos\theta)/c\). The distance travelled is \(d\) which by Pythagoras is
    \[
    d^2=\gamma^2L^2(\cos\theta-v/c)^2+L^2\sin^2\theta
    \]
    which simplifies to \(d=\gamma L(c-v\cos\theta)/c\) and if you divide that by the elapsed time you get the speed which is \(c\). You can do the same thing for the other interferometer arm and the return legs if you want and get the same thing and the only elephant trap is that when you're doing the return legs you need to remember to that neither start or end coordinate is zero so you need to explicitly subtract the start coordinate from the end coordinate to get the distance.

    I know I write long sentences but that's the whole Michelson Morley experiment and a few key implications in eight sentences which is less than the dozen Tushey wanted. Anybody want to bet we never see anything so concise or coherent from the crank?
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  15. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Scientific theses are never final. We believe they are well-established, checked, and agreed upon by a resounding majority. Then it turns out that there is something wrong. In the case of SR, the size and correlation relationships, are beyond any normal ability. Add to this Einstein's horse-jumping mindset, which is now sadly considered normal. No wonder no one understands it, they just make you believe it's OK because everyone says so. By the way, the claim that there is no definitive theorem is made by the Management Science doctrine itself. The one-year course is good, but the two-week course is not.
     
  16. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    I'll put here a sample of what I imagine the 12 sentences to be.From this you can see the basic attitude, some differences and possible wrong conclusions. Then we can discuss it further.


    If you are here on the discussion forum, you should undertake some extra work, such as the shortened version I mentioned, because yes it does make sense. In this case, neither a one-word answer is good, nor a one-website answer is suitable, in terms of getting the topic and the position in advance.So do me the favour of writing the 12 sentences. I'm sure you can do it, and you're not as sloppy as Einstein, who didn't take into account the relative velocities of motion of 4 bodies. If he had, he would have come to his senses much earlier.


    5. Special relativity SR, 1905

    Einsten based his theory of special relativity on two postulates, two initial assumptions. To the speed of light limit (1) and the relative speeds (2).

    Both of his assumptions were flawed, so that a series of further compensating errors and well-intentioned logical miscalculations were then required to make the result at make it look right. The internal problems of the theory are shown by logical inconsistencies and erroneous predictions

    Ad 1:, the speed of light depends on the energy level of the environment, so it has a variable value.


    Ad 2:The principle of relative speeds creates another insoluble problem. If we have two bodies and a relative velocity V, then our solution is bivalent because the vectors vA and vB are in opposite directions. This is a hiding error. However, if we consider three or 4 bodies, the number of "solutions" increases rapidly. Then the number of velocities becomes 6 or 24, and here we can be scared of which are real and which are not. However, to avoid tedious thinking, most people (Einstein included) are led to believe the superficial answer without criticism: 2 bodies, and one relative velocity. Thus both postulates are problematic, and the result is a flawed theory.”
     
  17. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    Ad1: I have the Taylor book in my memory and I suggest we discuss it separately as per your question already started on page 4.
    Ad2:It is indeed a good simple book, but it is also low quality in its conclusions.
    (I've got a huge homework assignment from you to make it easier, I'll answer it in twos.)

    In my mind, I went back 4 decades and realized that I had read Taylor's book in English. He gives very well, simplified examples to illuminate the difficult points of relativity. These are all different kinds of short examples to help understand complicated statements. I will try to recall one example:
    The barn and the moving rod.
    There is a barn 15 meters long and a man holding a pole 30 meters long, but the pole shortens to 15 meters at about the speed of light. At that point it will apparently fit in the barn, so no problem with the shortening issue.
    I now ask if I have correctly identified the said tank gun with my reading. I don't have the book, so I ask that we recall and discuss the same number of examples that you have inundated me within your last post. Cite example number 1!
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    Wow, the 'expert' in relativity doesn't even know what Einstein's 2 postulates for Special Relativity are. It sounds like you are not an expert, but instead you are just a crank.

    It is really surprising how little tom knows about relativity, usually cranks have at least a little knowledge.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2022
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    More nonsense.
    Nope, that is not a problem or error.
    You really do not understand relativity. All the velocities are real, all inertial frames are will give different relative velocities but they are still all correct. Try learning some physics, you might find it interesting.
    That is a very vague statement. How about this, there are 2 crafts in space, A and B. A sees B fly by at 20,000 km/hr and B sees A fly by at 20,000 km/hr.
    Which one is the real velocity?
    How could you determine that?

    Hint: first question - both, second question - it's not possible because the first question is meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2022
  20. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Nobody's saying they are and we were explicitly talking about quantum gravity which will one day replace relativity on this page but ether dragging is long ago disproven and no challenge to relativity.
    Huh? SR is really simple it's based off between one and four postulates depending what you count as a postulate and that's one less than Euclidean geometry.
    Ad hominem attacks are pointless but you have nothing better as far as I can see.
    The two postulates are the invariance of the speed of light in inertial frames of reference and the principle of relativity not what you're saying so it looks like the fact that relativity doesn't make sense to you is that you've made up your own theory that isn't relativity and it doesn't make any sense so perhaps you should learn the actual theory not your nonsense.
    What does that even mean? What measurements can you make to determine the "energy level of the environment" and how do you use those measurements to determine the speed of light? If you don't have an answer to this then you are again admitting that you're just making stuff up. Again.
    The only thing I can understand out of this is you whining that the principle of relativity doesn't make sense to you which means you don't believe any physics since Newton because it all relies on the principle of relativity so how you managed to be an engineer at all is impossible to understand.
    You really lack self awareness don't you?
    Huh? What "homework assignment"?
    0.87c is not "about" the speed of light.
    I can't work out what you think you're saying here.
     
  21. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Oh yeah and you still haven't acknowledged the point that your ether dragging hypothesis was disproven ages ago and you still haven't shown any logical inconsistencies in relativity.
     
  22. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    On the other hand his lack of knowledge shows that he doesn't understand Newtonian mechanics properly either because velocities are relative in Newtonian mechanics too and that is typical crank they don't really understand the basics so they can't build on them.
     
    origin likes this.
  23. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Very simple.
    You have a lot of crap floating at around 0 speed into the ether.
    So you can distinguish easily if it is you who is burning because of the crap or if it is the other spaceship who is burning because of his speed into the same crap.
    By chance they both have a shield. Nobody is hurt.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oops, sorry.
    You wanted some mathematical answer, so with some mathematical ether ?
    Yes, in that case (same if you have some light in the ether or some particle in the ether) ether dont burn the photons or the particles that travel inside.
    SR is a photon/particle theory (i have already said this) that travel in the "void" (dont say ether in this case because you would mean the solid ether of lorentz and it is not).
    But a spaceship doesent travel where the light can : It is too big ! (I hope you at least agree with that...)
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2022

Share This Page