About Michelson-Morley
COMMENTS ON
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY PARADOX SOLVED
By Justin Jacobs
Nick Percival had asked me to comment on this article, and I think the blog is suitable for this purpose.
I think that the paper contains many good arguments against the special theory of relativity. It is demonstrated that Einstein used mathematics as a magician and applied trickery. I also agree to the fact that Einstein and Lorentz introduced time dilation and contraction of length, or space, in an ad hoc way. So, many errors have been done during the long time that Michelson-Morey’s test have been done. Something must be wrong here.
The conclusion that ether does not exist is not founded at all and is just a guess work. Failures for a period of more that a century proves nothing. Predictions that are not fulfilled delivers no new knowledge. If there is an ether a property, like speed, can confirm this fact. However, if the ether does not exist there are no properties that can confirm this. Therefore, nonexistence cannot be proved, not even theoretically. So, Michelson-Morley paradox is not solved by logic.
The tests were based on an assumption that forces in light move with speeds c+v and c-v in 2 opposite directions. However, atoms in a crystal must also use the ether for positioning, since we cannot accept action at a distance. So, atoms also cause forces, and therefore we must assume that these forces also move with speeds c+v and c-v in 2 opposite directions. Therefore, we find that the assumed effect is real but compensated in the longitudinal arm. This fact solves the paradox, in my opinion, and also means that we get a real contraction of matter that is 2 times the FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is explainable, and not ad hoc.
An interpretational error existed also in the transverse arm. In relation to the distant mirror light was described by the vector sum of ether wind and wave velocity and it was not observed that mirrors are blind to the ether wind. Therefore, in the law of reflection in a mirror we should describe light without regarding ether wind inside the wave front. This means no effect in transverse arm and no indication of time dilation. So, wave front orientation is conserved in Michelson-Morley’s tests, as reported in a MEMO to CNPS in 2009. Therefore, with the interpretation given here we can see that Michelson-Morley’s tests confirm Galilean invariance and not Lorentz invariance. This means that we have an alternative to Jacob’s model that and can allow the ether to exist. This model seems more realistic than Jacob’s model, that is regarded as unfounded, although not regarded as disproved. However, we need an ether to explain the transmission of light and gravity and also can explain how crystals are hold together.
It is unhappy that experiences from the global positioning system, GPS, are not regarded since the high precision in a system in spherical symmetry and based on one-way speed of light can be united with a spherically symmetric ether wind. Such an ether wind can explain gravity, anomalies in gravity and Pioneer anomaly. The Sagnac effect can also be explained by an ether wind in radial direction.
Written by John-Erik Persson
John-Erik, you bring up a very interesting point about the seeming irrelevance of time dilation to the MMX interferometer experiment. Thanks, I’m continuing to examine that issue. SRT’s time dilation seems to be invalid both from a logic standpoint and from empirical evidence – particularly from GPS. However, Lorentz’s original clock retardation does NOT have logic problems and GPS data is consistent with clock retardation as a function of absolute velocity. However, currently, clock retardation does NOT seem relevant to explaining MMX, since there are no clocks used in MMX. However, I’m not sold on doubling length contraction. I sent you a link to Steven Bryant’s paper “Revisiting the MMX to Reveal an EOV of 30km/s” at http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/238 . Steven argues that MMX analysis has been based on a false approach. Steven’s alternative approach shows that the MMX result is actually consistent with an Earth orbit velocity of 30km/s which is a good match with modern data. Do you see a problem with Steven’s approach?
Nick
You said that clock dilation is NOT relavant to explain MMX, since there is NO clocks in MMX. That reaqsoning is wrong, and instead NO clocks is in agreement to NO ether wind effect in MMX.
John-Erik