You are on page 1of 7

Einstein wrong by proof by contradiction and the myth

of the Michelson-Morley experiment


Roger J Anderton
R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com

Part 1 On the Myth of the Michelson-Morley experiment

At slides entitled: History of special relativity I: debunking the myth of the


Michelson-Morley experiment Phys 1402: Honors Physics II (Marvin Marshak &
Paul Haines) says: [1] "The nail in the coffin of the myth [of the Michelson-Morley
experiment]: Simple explanation of the result of Michelson and Morley is to assume
that the velocity of light does depend on the velocity of the source. But that is the
exact opposite of the light postulate!"

So it is saying the opposite of what is usually said about the Michelson-Morley


experiment.

What is usually said is along these lines of what is at site Calculus without tears
which says: "The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed
of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First,
it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as
defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O'
with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c
as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of
time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't
flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound
change in our understanding of the world."

So the idea that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Special Relativity is now
starting to be looked upon as a "myth". i.e. thousands of science students over the
decades have been told a myth.
The attempt then by promoters of Einstein is to cause obfuscation after their myth has
been exposed as a lie that Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence for Special
relativity. [a] Taking it now as what it really is: variable light-speed, we can recover
Newtonian physics:

Part 2: Einstein wrong by use of Logic proof by contradiction

If Einstein meant that his 2nd postulate had as consequence an effect on time, then in
context of Newtonian physics there is no such thing hence proving his 2nd postulate
as false.

Logic steps being:

1. working in context of Newtonian physics.


2. assume light-speed constant
3. presumably derive something about effect on time and call it time dilation (put
aside the issue of whether it is an effect on time or on clocks for the moment)
4. no such thing in Newtonian physics therefore assumption false.

Logic steps being what we call proving the assumption false by using proof by
contradiction. Einstein therefore did not act logically. Some relativists in their
attempts to try to understand Einstein's mess conclude he must have really meant
effect on clocks, not on time. But that leaves many other relativists believing
nonsense about time travel.

Now need to show what this means in terms of the maths, so dealing with the maths:

Time dilation equation:

t' = gamma t (1)

gamma = sqrt(1-v2 /c2)

t' is of the primed observer O'


t is of the unprimed observer O

left hand side of (1) is gamma t just make trivial statement:

gamma t = gamma t (2)

multiply both sides by c:

c gamma t = c gamma t (3)


now call c' as speed of light of primed observer O' and let it be:

c' = c gamma (4)

now from this equation primed observer O' and unprimed observer O have same time
t, just different speed of light, O has c and O' has c'

And we are back to Newtonian physics.

So when relativists use equation (1), they shouldn't be doing that, they should be
using equation (4).

i.e. they conduct their experiments based on assuming light-speed as constant and
have to use equation (1) to compensate, when really they should go by equation (4).

Issues:

Of course it is impossible now to know what Einstein was thinking. Ideally he should
have been working from step 1 start from Newtonian physics. Looking at what
Einstein did and trying to make sense of it, it seems reasonable to suppose that step 1
start from Newtonian physics is where to start, hence Einstein goes wrong at the very
beginning of his theorising from thereafter.

Let's consider what a Professor at University New South Wales, Australia has to say.

After initial introduction of Einstein's relativity to his students, he reports: At this


stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light
among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". [3]

The reason for that reaction is that he has just told his students something that is
nonsense and violates logic, the equivalent to telling them that 1=2 in ordinary
arithmetic.

He then continues: Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true.

So he has not personally realised what he has told his students is logical nonsense and
is insisting it is true.

He then plucks out what he claims experimental evidence for his logical nonsense to
be true and says: This is something that has been extensively measured, and many
refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary
experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision.

This is a complete misrepresentation of empirical evidence as some people recognise.


He is talking logical nonsense and misrepresents experiment to support his claim.

So referring back to earlier as regarding the myth of the Michelson -Morley


experiment: The nail in the coffin of the myth [of the Michelson-Morley
experiment]: Simple explanation of the result of Michelson and Morley is to assume
that the velocity of light does depend on the velocity of the source. But that is the
exact opposite of the light postulate!"

So what the relativists who misrepresent the Michelson-Morley experiment are doing
is interpreting it from equations such as equation (1), when they should be using
equation (4).

So we have the following:

a. Logical nonsense presented as a theory.

b. Adherents of the theory not recognising they are talking logical nonsense, and
merely being amused when people react to them by saying that is impossible, and
they then respond it is not impossible and then misrepresenting empirical evidence
to falsely support their nonsense.

Some people now-a-days insist physics is supposed to be based only on empirical


evidence. But that completely fails when physics has now been hijacked by people
talking nonsense and misrepresenting experiments to falsely support their nonsense.
So what was simply a case of Einstein wrong by logic, they have not accepted and
made their nonsense a dogma. With their response to anyone pointing out it is
nonsense is to be amused and go on a ego trip believing themselves cleverer than that
person, and being unable to perceive the relativistic nonsense for what it really is.

Part 3: Philosophies dealing with theoretical changes

The Philosophies by which Establishment science changes the theory that it works by
are as follows [4]:
For Kuhn: The anomaly that the paradigm cannot solve leads to a crisis, and
eventually the old paradigm is replaced by a new one.
For Popper: The refuting instance contradicts the theory, and the theory is
thereby shown to be false..
For Lakatos: Theory Plus Protective Belt Imply the Evidence as observed.
There is no crisis or falsification.
The first two philosophies are which many scientists think happens, the third
philosophy is not so well known and is closer to what really happens. (There may be
more than these three philosophies, but mentioning these is sufficient for this article.)

Now explanation of Lakatos' theory of scientific change [4]: Lakatos distinguished


between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic
assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective
belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses.
For example, we have seen that the "core" of Aristotelian cosmology was constituted
by the basic propositions that (i) the earth is motionless at the center; (ii) the sun
moves around the earth; (iii) all motions of the sun, planet and stars are circular.
But the existence of the retrograde motion, variable distances and variable velocities
of the planets were, in Kuhnian terms "anomalies" which should have opened up a
"crisis". In Popperian terms, these should constitute "refutations". But in Lakatos'
terms this crisis or refutation was forestalled for nearly 2000 years by the adoption of
a series of "protective" measures, which we have already discussed: epicycles,
eccentrics, and equants.
Logically speaking we have the following, with
A=the basic Aristotelian assumptions (earth centered cosmos, the sun revolves
around the earth, all motions of cosmic bodies are circular)
B=normal observations (of perfectly regular, uniform and circular planetary
motions),
not-B = anomalous observations (of retrograde motion, unequal distances and
varying speeds)
In Popperian terms: If A then B; But not-B is the case; therefore not-A. In words: the
core assumptions (A) imply "normal" observations (B); but there are anomalous
observations (not-B); therefore, the core assumptions are wrong (Not-A). In other
words:
The core Aristotelian assumptions Imply
No Retrograde Motion, No Variable Distances and No Variable Velocity.
But these do in fact occur, and are regularly and reliably observed.
Therefore The core Aristotelian assumptions are wrong. (by modus tollens)
If this were the case, the core assumptions would have to be dropped immediately,
as Popper states, or a crisis would open leading to a new paradigm, as Kuhn claims.
But this did not historically happen, so Lakatos claims that the Popperian and
Kuhnian models are not accurate.
In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses"
which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting"
propositions from the core assumptions, since the conjunction of the core with the
periphery actually implies the otherwise anomalous statements. So, let's explicitly
add in the ad hoc or protective hypotheses for cosmology, which are:
C=the protective hypotheses (epicycles, eccentrics, and equants).
According to Lakatos, what happens, in logical terms, is the following: If A and C
then B; And B is the case; So, A along with C is confirmed. The core assumptions and
the peripheral hypotheses together imply what is in fact observed. In other words:
(Basic assumptions at the Core): Aristotelian assumptions Plus
(Ad Hoc hypotheses in Periphery): Epicycle/Eccentric/Equant Imply
(Observations): Retrograde Motion, Variable Distances and Variable Velocity.
Therefore, The core Aristotelian assumptions, aided and protected by the ad-hoc
hypotheses, is confirmed.
Note that we cannot conclude from this that A and C are therefore true (this would
be the fallacy of affirming the consequent), but we can say that A and C are probably
true, or confirmed to some degree. (see the discussion in the section on Popper about
confirming, rather than proving a scientific theory). The core assumptions A survive,
albeit with the needed addition of the protective belt.

So under Lakatos' theory of scientific change it will mean: Einstein supporters


although having been shown to be lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment will
not accept that truth in its entirety and will respond by trying to form more protective
belt around their beliefs of supporting Einstein's relativity.

Given the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment with its correct representation
rather than the false representation that the Einstein supporters have given us for
many decades, we can recover the maths of Newtonian physics. A result that is an
embarrassment for the Einstein supporters that they have been forcing upon the
physics community a false doctrine for many decades.

References

Part 1: Based on posting of Pentcho Valev to internet.

[1] https://www.physics.umn.edu/classes/2014/spring/Phys
%201402V.001/downloads/262371-1402-slides-SR1.pdf
[2] http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

[3] http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
[4] http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html
[a] Dealing with one feeble attempt at obfuscation: is the claim that Special relativity
goes by Maxwell theory. Yet we look to empirical evidence that is the Michelson-
Morley experiment and the admission of the myth, it means that it supports
Newtonian physics. And so given that, Maxwell theory must similarly been made to
conform to Newtonian physics and experimental evidence.

Note: the third philosophy of scientific change is I propose: what we NPA dissidents
have been referring to as a Hydra monster (I think term comes from Harry Ricker) in
several of our recent communications. It is where the supporters of Einstein's
relativity will try to form protective belt around Einstein's relativity, and not accept
numerous of their mistakes; trying to hide behind image that they personally
understand Einstein's relativity and it is just other supporters of Einstein that got
things wrong. Now highlighted in this article we have some Einstein supporters
pointing out what other Einstein supporters believe about the Michelson-Morley
experiment is a myth. It is these splits in opinions by Einstein supporters that create
different heads of their Hydra monster.

c.RJAnderton08-June-2014

You might also like