# The MM experiment is wrong!

Are you serious? Understanding that the rest mass is $$\sqrt{p_\mu p^\mu}$$ and relativistic mass is $$p^0$$ so totally different things goes back to 1908 at least which ain't "not so long ago". Sure you can subtract the rest mass from the total energy to get the kinetic energy but you never need to and it's usually a mistake to do it because mass isn't conserved in relativity so you're gonna introduce stupid mistakes by doing it. That's one reason why "relativistic mass" is a dumb concept that nobody uses any more because it's just a way to forget that it means total energy.

How do you justify using relativistic mass anyway? It's a stupid name for total energy but it's a genuine concept from relativity and has no derivation that doesn't rely on the invariance of light speed that you say you don't believe in. You say relativity is wrong but you use its formulas as if it were right.

Clarifying this issue is too difficult and would, in my opinion, lead too far. Please, I think, let us confine ourselves to the following statement, which I mean seriously: physics does not know what an inert mass is.
I accept that mass points are of size 0 and near 0 mass. All known mass (the mass of an iron ball) is the mass of the quarks in the nucleus of the atom un. the only known masses are those of the relativistic masses of the quarks in the nucleus. Also, the proton figure shown shows 3 quarks orbiting at the speed of light, with mass growth giving nearly 70% of the mass of the proton, the rest being the ether sea and gluons. I seem to remember pointing you to the extended article with its URL link.

Questions - no need to go into lengthy detailed replies. Readers Digest of Readers Digest answers are fine

1/ Have you detected this aether?

2/ What equipment was used?

Thank you

Depending on answers possible more questions

I think of myself as not being a verbal type, but I like to argue with data and calculations.
Then why is there no data or calculations, just you making empty claims with no evidence?

Clarifying this issue is too difficult and would, in my opinion, lead too far
So to be clear you are using results from relativity that assume a finite invariant speed of light in a theory that explicitly denies that and when challenged on your self contradiction you say discussing it would "lead too far". And you expect to be taken seriously.

Also, the proton figure shown shows 3 quarks orbiting at the speed of light,
Just more claims without evidence.

Clarifying this issue is too difficult and would, in my opinion, lead too far.
So just as a point of logic -

If you are challenged on a scientific claim you make, and you respond "well, clarifying it is too hard" - that means you cannot support your claim because you don't understand the subject.

The MM experiments - i.e. the Michaelson-Morley experiment - are flawed not only in their interpretation but also in their design. It is very important to set the record straight because this is the origin of the profoundly mistaken physical law that light travels at the speed of light relative to any moving object. I apologize if I do not write here with the usual brevity, but in some cases, I will expand on the lack of knowledge, the many related delusions, and philosophical fantasies that actually eclipse real physics. (Tom)
Preliminary

Relativity is a strongly abstract but universally accepted theory. He has dominated physics for 100 years, since 1921, when Einsten received in his hands the Nobel Prize. The theory conflicts perfectly with quantum theory, although some still hope that the two can be reconciled. Certainly not, and quantum theory is certainly true. In what follows, I will show that relativity is flawed and contains logical internal contradictions, regardless of the contradiction I have just mentioned. I will also base this proof on my reactivated aether theory, see later. By the way, Einstein agreed with the aether theory, saying that nature cannot exist without a connecting substance, the aether. I may be able to obtain the relevant audio material (BBC 1923) and publish it (in English, with a thick German accent) for those who believe in authority, for whom the question is settled. There are legitimate questions about the physical properties and natural behaviour of the aether. On the first subject I have written in detail elsewhere, now a dozen papers. I will publish some more initial thoughts on its behaviour below.

If the aether exists, then there is much question about its connection with the big bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe, and the relationship of moving, orbiting planets. It is aether related to material bodies, as it expands more rapidly when saturated with energy and somewhat entrains celestial bodies in the form of gravitational pressure (the aether energy gradients). Forming a relatively attractive relationship between solar systems and planets.

The central celestial body attracts the orbiting planets, so they used to say. In fact, it does not attract, but only repels less. In light of this, Newtonian mechanics tells us that the planets must orbit the Sun. The inner planets orbit faster than the outer planets, and in proportion to their own speed, they drag the aether around them with them. Curiously, the matter in the aether sea around the Sun is subject to the same rule as the planets, i.e. they orbit at a speed inversely proportional to the square root of the distance, as if in synchrony with the planets. The aether sea follows the movement of a planet everywhere. This idea is Dr. K.G.'s + theory, but I had to add a lot of other things before a sound, relativity-free cosmology coalesced. Near celestial bodies, the aether sticks tightly to the surface, and moving away from it a transient velocity state occurs. So, standing on rotating celestial bodies and moving away from the surface, the aether wind blows.

I apologize for putting all this upfront, but this is a preliminary clarification of the basic current misconceptions that dominate the so-called "today's, modern" physics. There always have been, are, and always will be misconceptions the physics. But it still feels dad me sick to think that in 500 years' time future physicists will be laughing or even crying at 21st-century physics.

Although there is a saying that it is easy to be clever in hindsight. We shall see, it is not easy in hindsight!

2. History

When J. C. Maxwell wrote down his equation 4 for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in 1864, it contained a constant that he suspected to be the speed of light.

The speed of light was first measured in the laboratory by the eminent French physicist Fizeau in 1849. He obtained a value of c = 300 million metres per second, which is roughly the value accepted today. This seemed a reassuring certainty, although it left open a 'tiny' question that was still theoretical at the time:

"Compared to what does a ray of light travel at speed c? If we move at speed v towards the light source, do we perceive a higher speed of light? More precisely, c'=c+v?"

It could not be more logical and natural, said the physicists of the time confidently. But we still need experimental confirmation - that's what makes science a science!

The optical device for detecting the speed of light relative to a beam was invented by a German physicist in 1858. But the great physicists of the time were reluctant to take up the task. They were well aware of the extreme difficulty of controlling light rays in a moving, shaking apparatus. Let the young people work now! - they thought. Sir Oliver Lodge, the English physicist, deserves credit for not letting the problem be forgotten. He persuaded several European physicists to carry out the experiment (Bradley, Roentgen, Eichenwald, Wilson, Rayleigh, Arago, Fizeau, Hoek, Airy). Lodge's ultimate hope was the American physicist A. A. Michelson, born in Polish-born.

He has built several devices with the help of prominent European universities, but these have given uncertain or negative results.

3. The ominous M-M experiment

A more abbreviated description of the experiment according to wikipedia (Hu):

"Just as the speed of sound is given in relation to air, the speed of light is given in relation to the ether.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. The aim of the experiment was to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the aether, or absolute space. The experiment used the Michelson interferometer developed by Michelson.

http://www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu/18/the-mm-experiment-is-wrong

The interferometer used in the experiment is shown in the picture. The light from the source is split by the semi-transparent mirror (F) into two beams which are reflected from mirrors A and B. The semi-transparent mirror again splits the rays into two parts, but now only the part of the rays that went towards the E screen is of interest. An interference pattern will appear on the umbrella, resulting from the phase difference between the two rays incident on the umbrella. The phase difference is due to the difference in path and time:

http://www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu/18/the-mm-experiment-is-wrong

The researchers set one arm of the interferometer parallel to the Earth's velocity vector, while the other was perpendicular to it. The light along the parallel arm takes tP time to reach the screen, while the light along the perpendicular arm takes tM time. The time difference causes a phase difference which appears as interference rings on the umbrella. Rotating the whole interferometer 90°, the other arm will be parallel to the Earth's velocity vector. During the rotation, we observe the change in the interference rings, which depends on the time difference.

The result of this experiment was, to everyone's surprise, negative, i.e. the velocity sought was always equal to zero. The experiment was repeated several times during the year and always gave the same result."

4. Interpreting the experiment

I'll put the rest of the thread in a new post, as I would have exceeded 10000 characters.

....

Sincerely Tom Tushey
Mech. Engineer
Hobby Physicist
Hobby Astronomer
Science Writer
Relativity Expert
www.aether-tom.com (Eng.)
www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu (Eng.)
www.aparadox.hupont.hu (Hu, vut it is the best.)​

This chapter is a continuation of the previously started essay "The MM-Experiment is wrong!". It now continues with chapter 4. (No worries, it only goes up to chapter 6.)

4. Interpreting the experiment

I would first like to make a few additions to the hypothetical conditions of the experiment.

The relationship between ether and matter

Ether is a weightless massless invisible liquid, although it is made up of particles with a high density and enormous kinetic energy. We humans do not perceive its enormous pressure, just as the flounder fish in the Mariana Trench does not die as a result of the high pressure. The fish is filled with high-pressure seawater both inside and outside its cells. The aether is not only outside inside and between our cells, but also inside our atoms and nuclei. It is only because of its strong electrical and magnetic properties that we can observe it in certain special experiments.

The L-shaped interferometer has the aether inside its tubular arms, and it blows through the walls of the tubes just as easily as if it were not there. So whether the aether is moving or not, it passes unhindered through all material bodies. Light, however, is linked to it through its electromagnetic properties, and in it, by picking up the speed of light, it moves with it.

The landmark M-M experiment of 1887

The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, carried out in America, was the milestone, the pinnacle experiment, which everyone accepted as the final decision that the device would show no effect. Michelson played a very large part in this acceptance, because he was, is, and will be the best experimental physicist in the world. (There may be better ones in the future, but none of the very many physicists will be able to stand out.)

The circumstances of the experiment

Michaelson placed a container on the laboratory table and filled it with mercury. Into this, he placed a heavy marble disc, which swam on top of the mercury but allowed the disc to rotate. On top of this was mounted the L-shaped interferometer, and even the light source itself. All this was done to damp vibrations from the ground. Obviously, he also used a lot of rubber sponges and tennis balls, as is common in optical experiments today. Train traffic was also stopped for the duration of the experiment within a 10-mile radius to reduce the number of sources of vibration. The latter shows the enormous importance attached to this experiment by the American physical society, the elite of society, and the American government.

Theoretical foundations

The experiment was based on a sea of stationary aether, which in the eyes of physicists of the time was indisputable. Other basic assumptions were the rotating Earth, the observer, the interferometer on the ground and the light source (sometimes even the distant stars) on the ground. The measuring instrument was always placed on the Earth because it cannot be moved due to the vibration. By the way, the L-shaped interferometer is a very insensitive instrument, in this respect, it is almost impossible to invent something worse. (I myself made 4 instruments several orders of magnitudes more sensitive in 1980)

But there is no need to move it - they thought at the time, because the Earth is moving in the etheric sea-anyway. You do not need to know the direction of movement, the device is rotated anyway to and fro. It also signals when it is set in a general position, since there is no way of knowing which way the true velocity vectors are pointing. In fact, the device is rotated from time to time and must then be in a different position relative to the aether flow.

The primary purpose of the experiment was to detect the phenomenon, the quantification of the phenomenon being secondary. It was thought that it was not necessary to move the light source itself, since the light emitted from it would be detached from the light source and would be aligned with the surrounding aether. The over-precise experimenters produced interference circles. A fragment of this can be called interference fringes and is perfectly sufficient to judge the experimental result. (I always refer to interference fringes myself.) If the stripes are displaced when rotated, the aether wind will show itself through the displacement of the stripes.

The wrong way out

Since their physicist wanted to solve the problem anyway, they came up with the strange idea that light is a special entity whose speed is not added to the speed of the interferometer. Moreover, and even more seriously, light moves at the speed of light c relative to all bodies. This "result" is in fact a bankruptcy of logical thinking or bankruptcy of logic. If we believe this claim, then logic is over, and any scientific statement of nature is a right not to obey the rules of logic.

5. Other MM-Experiments

Sincerely Tom Tushey
Mech. Engineer
Hobby Physicist
Hobby Astronomer
Science W
Relativity
www.aether-tom.com (Eng.)
www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu (Eng.)

Ether is a weightless massless invisible liquid, although it is made up of particles with a high density and enormous kinetic energy.

Ummmm

Weightless + Massless + Invisible LIQUID???
So how was Ether detected?

....oh wait it is made up of particles with a high density and enormous kinetic energy.

So Ether's energy is detected

Got it

It is only because of its strong electrical and magnetic properties that we can observe it in certain special experiments.

So NOT Ether's energy

Love to see photo of equipment used in certain special experiments.

Moreover, and even more seriously, light moves at the speed of light c relative to all bodies. This "result" is in fact a bankruptcy of logical thinking or bankruptcy of logic. If we believe this claim, then logic is over, and any scientific statement of nature is a right not to obey the rules of logic.

Ummmm are we talking logic? (philosophy)
or
a scientific statement of nature (confirmed by numerous experiments) oh that's right you don't believe

Strange a person who does not consider then the verbal type but likes to explain with formulas and diagrams, just posted notes only with no said formulas and diagrams

Train traffic was also stopped for the duration of the experiment within a 10-mile radius to reduce the number of sources of vibration. The latter shows the enormous importance attached to this experiment by the American physical society, the elite of society, and the American government.
The experiment was based on a sea of stationary aether, which in the eyes of physicists of the time was indisputable.
Apart from being disputed by all the other people who tried partially and fully entrained ether hypotheses you mean.
they came up with the strange idea that light is a special entity whose speed is not added to the speed of the interferometer.
Rubbish. All velocities are composited in relativity it's just that the composition of $$c$$ and anything else is always $$c$$.
This "result" is in fact a bankruptcy of logical thinking or bankruptcy of logic. If we believe this claim, then logic is over, and any scientific statement of nature is a right not to obey the rules of logic.
No mate it's just that it doesn't fit your world view and you don't want to make the effort to correct your world view so you're just going to pretend the world works the way you think it ought to.

Are you going to address the self contradictory use of relativistic maths in your lame retread of a theory or are you going to do the usual crank thing of refusing to think critically about your ideas while accusing scientists of refusing to think critically about their ideas?

Questions - no need to go into lengthy detailed replies. Readers Digest of Readers Digest answers are fine
1/ Have you detected this aether?
2/ What equipment was used?

I will try to take your advice and will only the narrow detail will refer.
1./ Yes I have noticed, alone, 4 decades ago.
2./ A self-designed liquid fizeau-based interferometer with a 228nm red light laser light source.
I have one question though: all the logical arguments I listed are not enough for you? Is will my experiment the decisive experiment for you?

I have one question though: all the logical arguments I listed are not enough for you?

Apart from that I don't understand your logic
Is will my experiment the decisive experiment for you?

No
If you have detected your Ether why have you not provided plans for your equipment for scientists to use and prove for themselves your Ether exist?

as air and water are invisible.

https://www.aether-tom.com/articles/aether-and-superstring

air and water are NOT INVISIBLE

Last edited:
Then why are there no data or calculations, just you making empty claims with no evidence?
In the meantime, let's look at some of the more important parameters of ether according to the CODATA data:
https://www.aether-tom.com/articles/aether-and-superstring

I would like you to wait until I post my article here, in which I try to put the above parameters into context. They all prove that the aether does exist, a claim that currently goes against the rest of today's mainstream opinion. So there is a big problem with the MM experiment, so what I have written so far is not idle chatter. If you pick out one parameter from the above, you and I can argue about that separately.

Just more claims without evidence.
I, for my part, do not use relativity in the slightest. It is flawed in its two postulates and has about 8 contradictions with internal or external science. Please give me some time to list them.
I cannot answer the question "what is mass" and I am convinced that this is not the job of engineers. You answer it, from your own knowledge or quote the answer from the physics you are taught. But not now because that's another debate will.​

Just more claims without evidence.
I have a full article on this on the web, which supports the construction from all sides. But I would leave the subject for later. See the article here!

If you are challenged on a scientific claim you make, and you respond "well, clarifying it is too hard" - that means you cannot support your claim because you don't understand the subject.
I have just replied to Origin saying that I don't think this is a task for engineers. Please look there.

Just more claims without evidence.
I, for my part, do not use relativity in the slightest. It is flawed in its two postulates and has about 8 contradictions with internal or external science. Please give me some time to list them.
I cannot answer the question "what is mass" and I am convinced that this is not the job of engineers. You answer it, from your own knowledge or quote the answer from the physics you are taught. But not now because that's another debate will.​
I often wonder why so many of the physics cranks we get have an engineering background. I suspect it is because they mostly work in a classical physics regime and also because they are not exposed to science research very much, so can sometimes fail to understand the vital role of observation of nature in the scientific method. But it is depressing, nonetheless.

So Ether's energy is detected

Yes, the ether is full of energy and sometimes it comes out spontaneously or after some technical fiddling. My relevant article is called Perpetuum mobile. I will post it here later. In the meantime, you can check it out here.
http://www.reactivated-aether.hupont.hu/11/perpeetum-mobile

Love to see the photo of equipment used in certain special experiments.

There is no special apparatus or photo to show the particles of the aether yet because it is too small. (I had another answer, but there I wrote about the speed of the aether.) I am also very curious about a photo of the electron, but I don't really hope for it.

Strange a person who does not consider then the verbal type but likes to explain with formulas and diagrams, just posted notes only with no said formulas and diagrams

I also produce text (preferably logical), data and graphs. I feel this is a good ratio, but you suggest where to move!

Michael 345 Said:

A logical answer is an evidence if it shows that another theory has a logical flaw.

Michael 345 Said:
If you have detected your Ether why have you not provided plans for your equipment for scientists to use and prove for themselves your Ether exist?

I had no money, no time, no energy. However, I have made 10 more experimental descriptions, which I will present here. I have sent it to the academic level, but it is not being dealt with. It is because they are forward-looking, they see that I am right and they know they will have a lot of problems.
I feel that you would rather control me instead of answering the question: is the MM experiment correctly interpreted, Yes or No?

Last edited:

I've read about 100 books and articles on the subject, mostly in Hungarian. I can't remember which ones, but I do remember that it was found in reliable places.I think the MM experiment is a critical point in physics today, and our predecessors were right to do it with maximum energy input.

If I understand you correctly, you don't accept that the anther sticks to the surface of the planets, maybe you don't accept that the parts further away from it are lagging behind, so that's where the aether wind blow relative to the surface. I take it you don't accept that there is an aether to fill the vacuum. But then what is in the vacuum: an emptiness, some small matter or dense matter that affects the behavior of normal matter? It would help if I could get your opinion.

And I think that in physical processes there is nothing but absolute speed. This is the speed of light in its immediate vicinity, i.e. ether, which is c, or water, which is c/n, etc. If you look at all this from a moving object (Einstein and relative speed) then nothing really changes, you are just complicating your own life and even coming to wrong conclusions.

You have obviously been taught to have a deep belief in relative speeds and to reject the old, the absolute woundedness. I have also given many concrete examples in my answers that only absolute speed is physical reality. Relative velocity is only an easy way to simplify thinking, but it leads to great complications. See relativity.

Last edited: