# The MM experiment is wrong!

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.

"Postulate 1: All physical phenomena, and hence the mathematics of the theory describing the phenomena, must look the same in all inertial frames." (Wikipedia EN)

This statement is turning into a huge mathematical fog, and there is no way to get to the bottom of it. On the other hand, the statement I abbreviated (the speed of light is the same for all objects) would be a well-contained fact if it were true. The MM experiment does not prove this, while you keep claiming it.

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.

The inertia frame is not a physical reality, but a fiction of relativists and the mathematics of fiction.

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.

Both observers have a good view of the speed of the others, but these are relative speeds, which are the observer's fiction. The physical speed (which can be used to make physical calculations) is the speed relative to the aether. You are mistaken if you think this cannot be measured.

I know I shouldn't respond, but...

You should not if you wanted to remain ignorant.
But you did, because you think that doing so you will show everyone that you are the big guy and not he funny guy.
This is why i was very confident you would do some sort of "answer".

Oh, you mean that material that hits the earths atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour, is that the 'crap' that has 'about zero' velocity.

You mean that you dident understand the sentences i used twice ?
Lets try a third time.

Dicart said:
Not at zero !
Around zero, and zero would be the ground state of the vaccum.

"Around" is now in red and i could soon use uppercase also . (not to make it true you know...)

origin said:
That doesn't make very much sense now does it?

What !
YOU say that ?!!!
It is YOU who stated that every speed (i prefer to use "speed" and there is a much more physicist word, but i reserve it to physicists) is relativ to some frame.

origin said:
There is NO WAY to determine which, or if both of the ships are 'really' moving, you can only say they are moving relative to something.

Ouuuch...
So you meant that the earth velocity is at thousands of miles per hour and "the crap" is at 0 ?

Why do you think so ?
Explain me, i am ignorant.

tomtushley said:
The inertia frame is not a physical reality, but a fiction of relativists and the mathematics of fiction.

Exactly.
And the first evidence of that is the validity of the quantum physic, who admit that the ligth is some sort of exitation of the "quantum field" (some other words to talk about "the void", "the ether" or the "vacuum").

Real science here ===>>>

Fermilab said:

Zero Point Energy
You Wrote:

I recently read an article that made reference to something called Zero Point Energy. It said that every point in space can never be void of all energy. Could you expand on what the Zero Point Energy theory is?

Thanks..
Jason Holderness

Particles (electrons, photons, etc) are quantum' excitations of quantum fields' that fill all of space (more accurately quantum fields are a fundamental property of space itself). A vacuum has no particles in it (in curved space, for example near a black hole or in the very early universe, this can be an ambiguous statement) but the quantum field is still there. Furthermore a quantum field can never be completely bored, it is always slightly excited even in a vacuum. This minimum level of excitation contributes to the energy of the vacuum amongst other things. This is what the zero point energy is. The zero point energies of the electromagnetic quantum field (whose quantum excitations are photons) and other bosonic' quantum fields give a positive contribution to the energy of the vacuum, while the zero point energies of the electron quantum field and other fermionic' quantum fields give a negative contribution to the energy of the vacuum. There are also other contributions to the energy of the vacuum.

Can it affect the way particles act?

Yes. For example, if one places two electrically conducting (metal) plates together so that they are almost touching but not quite, the electromagnetic quantum field between the plates will be restricted in the ways it can be excited between the plates and so its zero point energy between the plates will be reduced. The closer the plates are together the more restricted the excitation of the electromagnetic quantum field will be and the lower will be its zero point energy between the plates. This causes an attarctive force between the plates which has been measured in experiments.

It can even affect the way the whole universe acts. Recent observations of distant exploding stars seem to imply that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, which in turn is most plausibly interpreted as evidence that the vacuum has an extremely small but positive energy. (The gravitational effect of a positive vacuum energy is to cause the expansion of the universe to speed up, in contrast with that of ordinary matter (particles) which is to cause the expansion of the universe to slow down and possibly even reverse.) However, the value of this positive vacuum energy is over 10^60 (1 followed by 60 zeros) times smaller than one would naively estimate from adding up the zero point energies of known quantum fields. Other contributions to the vacuum energy must cancel this out to extraordinary accuracy. Why this cancellation occurs is a mystery but may have something to do with the Anthropic Principle.

Could this help explain how light/energy can travel through a vacuum?
No. Light is an excitation of the electromagnetic quantum field and travels through the vacuum because the electromagnetic quantum field is an integral part of the vacuum.
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/vacuum_energy.html

This statement is turning into a huge mathematical fog,
Just go away with your crap ideas.

Double post.

Moderator note: Dicart has been warned for flaming and trolling.

Members are reminded that you should address the subject matter of claims and not make ad hominem attacks on other members. Also, at the moment this is a Science thread, which means that members should take some care to make sure they are not making definitive statements about scientific matters without being able to defend them.

Einstein's life works from continued

......

11. 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).

12. Cosmological constant 1923

At the time, it was commonly believed that everything in the cosmos was stationary and that the distance between stars was constant. Of course, this was Einstein's view as well. In fact, he believed more deeply than most in a static universe, since his Creator God could not have created anything other than a perfect, final universe. So he tried to form general relativity in this direction. He built into his equations a so-called cosmic constant to counteract the gravitational pull towards the center of the cosmos. He called it repulsive gravity. In a way, he provided the stability expected of the cosmos in his theory.

But in 1929, something unexpected happened. An American astronomer - Hubble - used a giant telescope to show that stars were moving away from one by one, meaning the universe was expanding. This effectively proved the hypothetical constant, but Einstein was stymied at this point. Hubble spent six months proving obvious to him before he came to believe it. After that, his confidence in the cosmic constant was apparently shaken, and he later withdrew it.

Historians of science blame him for this move. I don't think he should have withdrawn it either, for two reasons. He could have said that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it just needed to be made a bit bigger. Or he could have said that there was another, as yet unknown, force at work. I myself am thinking of a third solution, dark energy. It is expanding - and at a variable rate - so it is probably also replenishing itself and manifesting itself as a force from the inside out.

After all, I am optimistic about the creation of a cosmological constant because it has started a thought process in astronomy. Although we are still at the very beginning of this process.

13. Bose-Einstein condensation 1923

The Indian physicist Bose succeeded in deriving Planck's law of radiation for photons using a statistical method. Einstein generalized this to matter and all fermions with half spin. It was, however, obvious that the family of extremely behavioral, whole-spin particles should be called bosons after Bose.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is one of the most famous thought experiments in quantum mechanics. Its original aim was to demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum physics theory and to reduce the role of the observer. "Colleague, can you see the moon in the sky? And if we don't observe it, is it really not there?" - Einstein argued.

The Bohr-led group of physicists had by then embraced non-locality and the key role of the idea of the observer in the control of micro-processes. Everyone was also familiar with the amazing phenomenon of entanglement. It was the phenomenon that two connected particles would hold hands even if they were infinitely far apart when they separated.

This also means hyper-speed of light or infinitely fast contact between bodies.

Einsteins thought in terms of an electron-pair experiment, but they did not see electrons as the birthplace of the indeterminacy relation, but as a material reality. "Matter is nothing but a particularly strong state of a field in space," Einstein argued. John Bell put the theoretical debate into a mathematical formula and later resolved the hard formula.

Aspect performed the ultimate experiment with atoms and proved the incredible paradox. Today, this experiment is usually performed with a split and then combined laser beam. The first laser experiment was carried out in a 600-meter-long tunnel under the Danube in Vienna.

Nowadays, the above revolution in the history of science is commented on as Einstein's logical, witty debate partner. Bohr, on the other hand, was the usual vague, unintelligible scientist with the wrong keywords - but he was still decisively right.

I myself am on Einstein's side, and I believe with him that logic should not be abandoned. The physical micro-world has now become intangible and incomprehensible, but in a deeper layer, we will one day find 'matter' and meaningful order again. The way forward is to accept and spread the paradoxes of Bohr's quantum physics temporarily. Domestic science should also declare that today's physics has finally left the level of pious materialism and declare that a fundamental change of approach has taken place in physics and in our so-called sense of reality. This implies that science will have to acknowledge the hitherto denied cluster of parallaxes, which will mean a temporary loss of prestige.

But scientific correctness requires the truth to be told, while to gloss it over is worse than simple pseudoscience itself.

Unfathomable quantum mechanics, uncertainty, and the elusiveness of the material world are only temporary symptoms. The shallowness of our knowledge keeps us in a state of uncertainty, even chaos. There will come a time when we will perceive multidimensional space, the permeability of matter, and the indeterminacy relation as a logical fit of simple phenomena, much as we can easily follow the behavior of air molecules swirling around our room with the help of statistical mechanics.

15. Unified field theory UFT 1949

Nowadays, the disciplines of physics are fragmented and scattered: classical mechanics, electricity, magnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction, gravity, etc. It is like looking at continents fragmented by oceans: Europe, Africa, America, and Australia.

No wonder all the eminent scientists have tried to unite them. Einstein tried it, but at the end of two decades of hard work, his hopes were dashed.

His Monstre Lecture was given in front of the American and even the world's scientists, but it was a complete failure.

Einstein spent the last decades of his life in solitary work, shutting himself off from modern physics, rejecting it on principle. "If I were to choose a profession today, I would not go into physics, but into carpentry. His work still makes sense!"

So it was to be expected that his lecture would be poorly received by the razor-sharp brain young physicists who had long since given up on the idea.

They clamored and shouted. So it was the mathematicians who soon realized that the unknown mathematics Einstein used was a distorted version of the absolute calculus they had worked out earlier. Oppenheimer himself, the father of the atomic bomb, and the doyen of physics at the time remained disciplined. He had a famously calm temper, but he admitted afterward that he had been out of his depth at the time.

Einstein realized that he had failed to find his mermaid in the churning foam of the new mathematics. But with exemplary determination and diligence, he kept working until his death. Every month, he would choose an unsolved problem or paradox and analyze it with one or two of his students. Unfortunately, he never once found the key to the solution. Of course, he himself had lost that key in 1905, when he had abandoned physical reality for the relative theory of motion, a world of abstractions that logic could not unravel, and had banished the aether from the field of physics.

16. 3+1 dimensional spacetime

It is impossible for space to be 3-dimensional, although we humans see it as 3-dimensional and think of it as such. However, 3D, or three dimensions, is not enough for a sophisticated physical or cosmological theory. The minimum is 9D, below which it is hardly possible to go. But there are also 21, 32, 64, etc. dimensional theories of space

For historical reasons, Kaluza and Klein's 1926 theory of 4 or 5-dimensional space (not 4+1 D, but 4 or 5 D,) stands out. They tried to solve the internal problems of relativity.

Einstein himself tried a 3+1 dimensional theory of space, recklessly conflating the 3 dimensions of space with a completely different type of entity, time. But time is an infinitely important part of physics, it's in almost every formula. How should we then interpret the formula containing time if it also represents space? He was about to resolve the physical distortions predicted by relativity. For example, the changes in length and time that occur either simultaneously or instead of each other. It is unlikely that idea is viable.

Tom Tushey
Mechanical Engineer
Hobby Physicist
Relativity Expert​

Exactly.
And the first evidence of that is the validity of the quantum physic, who admit that the ligth is some sort of exitation of the "quantum field" (some other words to talk about "the void", "the ether" or the "vacuum").

A quantum field is probably understood by physicists to be the vibration of something, a thing, an invisible, all-pervasive energy field. My favorite, the aether, is also made up of mechanically vibrating filaments, randomly giving or taking energy to subatomic particles. It's worth looking at this simpler process because the light is actually an overly complex entity. The latter is too difficult even for a top physicist.

To give you a break, I'll give you a riddle, where just have to guess a one-digit number and a name:

E.W. Morley was an English physicist from a noble family. He continued to experiment after the failure of the Great Experiment and carried out many more experiments. The name of his help and the number of experiments he performed are surprisingly easy to guess. It's all right if you don't know, but surely there must be an accomplished physicist here who will write up the results.

Moderator note: Dicart has been warned for flaming and trolling.

Members are reminded that you should address the subject matter of claims and not make ad hominem attacks on other members. Also, at the moment this is a Science thread, which means that members should take some care to make sure they are not making definitive statements about scientific matters without being able to defend them.
..at the moment.....

Surely a move to Alt or Pseudo cannot be far off....?? This poster continues to write reams of wrong science and wrong science history at almost every turn. Just another delusional anti-relativity engineer, I'm afraid.

Surely a move to Alt or Pseudo cannot be far off....?? This poster continues to write reams of wrong science and wrong science history at almost every turn. Just another delusional anti-relativity engineer, I'm afraid.

So you have elaborate the theory that can reconciliate the quantum physic with SR ?
Why do you say that only SR is right when everyone knows that quantic physic is right ?
Are you not at least interrested to know what the domain application of SR is ?

So you have elaborate the theory that can reconciliate the quantum physic with SR ?
It's called Quantum Electrodynamics, and is the most successful theory to date in terms of terms of its predictions aligning with experimental results.
The conflict comes between GR and QM.
Each makes accurate predictions within their domain, but each also has its failings when extended the domain of the other.
This means neither is 100% correct or complete, and is not a simple matter of one being right and the other wrong. Therein is the challenge: developing a theory that gets things right where QM gets things right, while also getting things right where GR gets things right.

It's called Quantum Electrodynamics...

But but ... quantic physic!

It's called Quantum Electrodynamics, and is the most successful theory to date in terms of terms of its predictions aligning with experimental results.
The conflict comes between GR and QM.

You mean QM use Newtonian time and GR not ?
Yes it is... but if you consider a "local" phenomenon, this sounds total obvious.

Each makes accurate predictions within their domain, but each also has its failings when extended the domain of the other.

Newton theory is also fine, it depends only of his domain of application.
I am also sure i can invent an engineer theory fully applicable when i use 10 ms-2 instead of 9.81 ms-2
But doing so i im not doing science.
You have the same problem with thermodynamic : All the laws we use are applicable within "their domain", because ALL the formulas depend on an approximation (if not you can not do the calculation... so no formula)

This means neither is 100% correct or complete, and is not a simple matter of one being right and the other wrong. Therein is the challenge: developing a theory that gets things right where QM gets things right, while also getting things right where GR gets things right.

Thats why if you consider the approximations correct (or some mathematical trick) to be used within one domain you are doing engineer work, not fundamental scientific work.

Feynman said:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/697945/understanding-this-quote-by-feynman

Feynman knowed that his approximations were wrong.

Seriously?
You haven't even bothered to read a primer on relativity - as witnessed by the basic misunderstandings you have about it - and you call yourself and expert?

To think outside the box, you must first understand what's in the box.

DaveC426913 I'm a relativity expert, and it's a pity you don't believe that. However, I don't see you as a university graduate, you don't think on a sufficiently intellectual level. I started a discussion here on relativity, and you can't say a word about the details (except for the mass increase issue, but your opinion is wrong and unfounded).

And now I'll tell you what's in the box:

1, There are numerous erroneous foundations on which, when superimposed for good money, those highly respected physicists are sure to arrive at erroneous or completely wrong results. Because they can't see backward or forwards.

2, There are still some bright partial results in the box, and a lot of experimental results that are not in harmony with each other and with the current physics. There is currently no explanation for this pile.

3, And the self-aggrandizement that journalists and incompetents buy into.

4, The whole of "modern" physics is one big state science! Posterity in 500 years will weep at this, as I have written before. Did you not pay attention to that sentence?

5, As well as hiding difficult problems, the pile-up of unsolved problems. Examples are the M-M experiment and the H-K experiment (the atomic clocks flying), and hundreds of others.

By the way, for a better list of the latter, I have posted a list of my website hits, but because of a quip from an envious physicist, I have subtracted 100 from the total hits. This is to put me in the negative so that the envious physicist is satisfied. You can fit into that 100, but you can also ask for an extra 100. The website where you can see the "modern" physics misconceptions is: www.aether-tom.com

Last edited:
DaveC426913 I'm a relativity expert
You are not. This is apparent by the number of misunderstandings you have about it in your posts.

DaveC426913 I'm a relativity expert
The evidence says otherwise, so I disagree.
And now I'll tell you what's in the box:

1, There are numerous erroneous foundations on which, when superimposed for good money, those highly respected physicists are sure to arrive at erroneous or completely wrong results. Because they can't see backward or forwards.
You have no evidence, so I disagree.
2, There are still some bright partial results in the box, and a lot of experimental results that are not in harmony with each other and with the current physics. There is currently no explanation for this pile.
Science does not have the answers to everything; no kidding, so what.
3, And the self-aggrandizement that journalists and incompetents buy into.
That is you opinion and I disagree with it.
4, The whole of "modern" physics is one big state science! Posterity in 500 years will weep at this, as I have written before. Did you not pay attention to that sentence?
Pure bull shit.
5, As well as hiding difficult problems, the pile-up of unsolved problems. Examples are the M-M experiment and the H-K experiment (the atomic clocks flying), and hundreds of others.
You have a problem, you are fixated on 2 experiments. One is 130 years old and the other is 50 years old.

Relativity is settled science and is incorporated into current technology. You are tilting at windmills my confused fellow.

1, There are numerous erroneous foundations on which, when superimposed for good money, those highly respected physicists are sure to arrive at erroneous or completely wrong results. Because they can't see backward or forwards.
...

4, The whole of "modern" physics is one big state science! Posterity in 500 years will weep at this, as I have written before. Did you not pay attention to that sentence?

Wow, you're starting off on the Crackpot Index with a bang!

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

There are physicists in Hungary who are screaming all over the internet, while they don't know the basics of relativity. I mean the ones that show its essence while confusing the researchers of the fundamental questions with superficial chatter. These basic experiments are, for example, the aether wind experiments. The many attempts clearly show the orientation of the great scientists of old, and the high level of the logic of the traditional physicists, while today's physicists have managed to go below that level, i.e. below zero level. It is not for nothing that 20th-century physicists have tried again and again to replicate the M-M experiment properly, investing time, energy, and money to clarify a confusing situation. Below I list some basic experiments (obviously unknown to the uneducated and ignorant) that show the error and pure logic that returns the normal man to normal logic. The intelligent man keeps trying, and tries to unravel the logical bankruptcy that light moves only at the speed of light relative to altogether-back bodies moving in a confused.

Aether wind experiments

1. experiments before Michelson

After the medieval religious worldview, the modern age saw the emergence of rational thinkers such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Hughes. A little later, they began to investigate the most exciting entity of all, light. The first milestone was Newton's Principia, a book of formidable scientific appearance and very large size. It reveals that the scientist could not decide whether to consider light as a wave or as a stream of particles. Later, the question of the speed of light also arose. Its value first became a scientifically established numerical value from Maxwell's equations, using the two fundamental properties of the aether, the vacuum constants e0 and m0.

The question was also raised of whether the speed of light from fixed stars is different since the Earth's orbital speed is sometimes added and sometimes subtracted. For the same reason, there must be a significant aether wind blowing around us, because it is logical that space is filled by an approximately stationary sea of aether. Scientists set about the first difficult task of detecting the asymmetry of the speed of light. Observations and experimental results are becoming more and more accurate, approaching 0 and therefore threatening a logical disaster.

Experimentation is nowadays even more intense, for some reasons:

- Relativity believers want to find exact proof since SR still has no experimental proof.

- The remaining adherents of classical physics and logic want to get a result above 0, although the current state of affairs is a disaster for them.

- Technology is advancing rapidly, and it is hard for a researcher not to try out his new super-device on the old battlefield.

- Even second-order experiments often contradict one theory or another, and so far no third way has been found. (I don't think there is one, but I don't think it's necessary.) The old way remains.

There are about 100 or so experiments and analyses published in serious journals. But there could be thousands of unpublished experiments - that is, many people are fascinated by this unresolved paradox. I am among the enthusiasts of the latter group with an experiment.

2. Prominent experimenters up to 1880:

Bradley, Roentgen, Eichenwald, Wilson, Rayleigh, Arago, Fizeau, Hoek, Airy.

Bradley pointed his telescope at the sky for a long time and discovered that the stars in the night sky move in a small ellipse, i.e. they describe an elliptical orbit every year. The ellipses are the same size, whether the star is distant or very distant. It is a projection of the Earth's orbit onto the sky. The idea for the experiment came from the fact that, when sailing at sea, the flag on the mast will turn in a different direction than expected if the ship is sailing at an appropriate speed oblique to the wind.

My notes:
This astronomical observation is an early success, compared to the later centuries of struggles to understand light. Something had happened, something had changed in the instrument. We will see below that it is a white raven among a series of later failures.
(Failures, but only compared to preconceptions.)

The phenomenon itself has been called an astronomical aberration ever since, and contrary to current superficial opinion, it does not support the SR theory, but strongly challenges it.

2.2 Sir George Stokes, 1852

The Irish mathematician is best known for his work on the un. The Irish mathematician is best known for his un. Stokes's theorem establishes a relationship between the closed curved integral of a vector and the surface product of its rotation. He spent a long career investigating the behavior of fluids, viscosity, vorticity, etc. But he was most concerned with the behavior and nature of light rays. According to his theory of light, the carrier of light, the aether, is attached to the surface of the earth, while above it gradually separates from the bound layer and moves as aether winds. Unfortunately, he later retracted this idea, which applied dynamical physics.

Stokes' light hypothesis was analyzed by Lorentz, and then, referring to the work of Arago and Airy, he considered it impossible. But I think it is very possible! This theory is the way out of the aether wind paradox!

Since this is not an experiment with a positive effect, but a theory with a solution, I have highlighted the title line in pink instead of red. By the way, I consider the theory to be of a higher order and more important than the experiments that lay the foundations.

2.3 Arago and Oevre, 1810

French physicists used binocular lenses to study the position of stars as the Earth orbited the Sun. It was assumed that the telescope lenses moving in a stationary light meter would catch or refract the light beam (v/c, first kind effect). In a later experiment, Airy also filled the telescope tube with water. No effect was observed.

2.4 Hoek, 1868

He tried to repeat Arago's experiment in an improved form. He used a ground light source and placed a long tube filled with water in one branch of a rectangular light path. He also observed no change.

Arago (Arezzo) was president of the French Academy and among my 10 favorite physicists. He is an excellent experimenter and a keen scientist. As a private person, he was open, honest, sportsmanlike, friendly, cordial, and even downright nice. Everybody loved him. So he was the complete opposite of the famous Newton. Once, standing on the deck of a sailing ship, he saw a ball lightning bolt rush into the mast and knock it over. He gave a detailed description of the phenomenon, which would be unusual nowadays because Hungarian academics would be obliged to listen to it. "We tactically relegate what might be expected to catch us to the grave of the non-existent!"

3. M-M type experiments in the early 20th century

Michelson and Morley's experiment of 1887 is a milestone in the chase for the aether wind. The table below is an abridged list of the key players and the experimental results.

3.6 Michelson, Gale and Pearson, 1923

In an abandoned mine near Chicago, explorers laid two rectangular pipeline systems. The larger of the two was cca. The larger one was 600x300 meters and the smaller one was used as a reference tool. The question was whether a device operated underground could also show the Earth's rotation. Yes, it did! There was a streak shift of 0.230, well within the accuracy predicted by theoretical calculations. This creates a confusing situation for both sides, with no one willing to delve into the theoretical basis beyond the statements made.

3.16 Kennedy and Thorndike, 1932

In this experiment, the researchers used an interferometer of different arm lengths in an acute-angled (56 degrees) arrangement. With a light-path difference of 32 cm, the creation of interference fringes was a feat of brilliance. This was achieved in the infrared region of the mercury vapor lamp (l=5461 nm). Unlike Michelson, the instrument was not rotated but fixed to the laboratory table. It was expected that a change of velocity and direction along the earth's orbit would cause an interference pattern change. But even the rotation of the earth's surface could show up in the result.

They operated the fixed interferometer for many months. Meanwhile, a special technique was used to keep the temperature of the instrument within 0.001 degrees Celsius. Photographs of the strips were taken every 2 hours. When the results were evaluated, the position of the strips was unchanged within a 0.1% error margin.

Notes:
This experiment argues not only against the existence of aether winds but also against the shrinkage hypothesis (Lorentz's attempt to find a way out). However, later analyses showed that the length of the arms was too small (220 mm and 61 mm), and therefore the apparatus was, in my opinion, inadequate to detect the effects in question (this is easy to figure out without "analysis"). It is unfortunate that many scientists considered and still consider this to be an authoritative, even decisive experiment.