Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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:
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 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:
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'
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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
[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