Michelson and Morley : Pioneers of Post-Truth Physics

[Pentcho Valev]

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

In the period before 1905, Newton's emission theory of light was a competing theory for the wave-in-ether theory of light. Scientists traditionally compared the predictions (explanations) of the two theories, and the undulatory theory invariably won the competition (the emission theory had virtually no supporters). Michelson and Morley obeyed the tradition at the beginning of their 1887 paper:

"The discovery of the aberration of light was soon followed by an explanation according to the emission theory. The effect was attributed to a simple composition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the earth in its orbit. The difficulties in this apparently sufficient explanation were overlooked until after an explanation on the undulatory theory of light was proposed." On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether (1887) by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

But Michelson and Morley didn't obey the tradition in the description of their experiment. Instead of discussing the predictions of both - emission and undulatory - theories, they only discussed the predictions of the latter:

"Let V= velocity of light. v= velocity of the earth in its orbit." ibid.

The above quotation implies constant velocity of light relative to the ether, and also constant velocity of light relative to the sun. In other words, in the reference frame of the sun, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. It is this assumption that the null result of the experiment refuted.

Michelson and Morley could have written:

Let V = velocity of light in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the earth motion. v = velocity of the earth in its orbit. V' = V ± v = velocity of light in a direction parallel to the direction of the earth motion.

The above assumption, based on Newton's emission theory of light, was confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. This fact was hidden by Michelson and Morley, and post-truth physics was born.

 

[Think twice]

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

In the period before 1905, Newton's emission theory of light was a competing theory for the wave-in-ether theory of light. Scientists traditionally compared the predictions (explanations) of the two theories, and the undulatory theory invariably won the competition (the emission theory had virtually no supporters). Michelson and Morley obeyed the tradition at the beginning of their 1887 paper:

"The discovery of the aberration of light was soon followed by an explanation according to the emission theory. The effect was attributed to a simple composition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the earth in its orbit. The difficulties in this apparently sufficient explanation were overlooked until after an explanation on the undulatory theory of light was proposed." On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether (1887) by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

But Michelson and Morley didn't obey the tradition in the description of their experiment. Instead of discussing the predictions of both - emission and undulatory - theories, they only discussed the predictions of the latter:

"Let V= velocity of light. v= velocity of the earth in its orbit." ibid.

The above quotation implies constant velocity of light relative to the ether, and also constant velocity of light relative to the sun. In other words, in the reference frame of the sun, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. It is this assumption that the null result of the experiment refuted.

Michelson and Morley could have written:

Let V = velocity of light in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the earth motion. v = velocity of the earth in its orbit. V' = V ± v = velocity of light in a direction parallel to the direction of the earth motion.

The above assumption, based on Newton's emission theory of light, was confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. This fact was hidden by Michelson and Morley, and post-truth physics was born.

There is an unfortunate thread in physics perpetuated by those on both sides of the argument (relativity vs emission) in that somehow an emission theory cannot include what is sometimes referred to,as an undulatory theory of light. Even in 1878 this unscientific view was held. Pg 179 point 3 :

https://www.nature.com/articles/019178a0.pdf

The author S Tolver Preston claims that waves leaving a source cannot travel through the vacuum (aether) at c relative to the source. This argument is nonsense, and is seen in 20thC theory from people like DeSitterl And ignores the fact that all things being relative there is no difference between a source that moves in a vacuum or the observer. Both have the same outcomes. So if light travels from a source to an observer in a vacuum ....who is moving ? The source or the observer? It is impossible to clarify, because in truth both are moving relative to each other.
Just like DeSitters famous double star argument. Does star in the double star move,....or does earth move? From either, the other does.
At which point one can prove people like DeSitter and S Tolver Preston as being wrong. Because for any source, it is always in the rest frame. And the observer is always moving. Even though the observer would swear themselves silly and say that they aren’t moving the source is.
And in the source frame light propagates away at c and he observer moves. Light is therefore always moving at c in the source frame. As MMX proves.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Deciphering the above quotation: Originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c. By introducing suitable fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein made the experiment incompatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and compatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c.

In 1921 Einstein, already a deity, declared: "Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K". This was tantamount to saying that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved the constancy of the speed of light:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEI...e-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156

Einstein's 1921 blatant lie has been universally taught ever since:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "How fast do you see the light of Bob's laser? You'd expect this to be faster than the light that comes out of your laser pointer by the speed of the train, but not so. It moves with the exact same speed as yours. Because the speed of light is always the same. This is what was confirmed with the famous Michelson-Morley experiment."

View: https://youtu.be/9-jIplX6Wjw?t=207


"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." http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!" https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Philip Ball: "Michelson and Morley set out to detect the ether by recording the velocity of beams of light travelling in different directions. They expected to see different speeds for each beam, caused by the motion of Earth through the ether. To their surprise, they saw nothing of the sort — the speed of light remained constant in all directions." https://www.nature.com/articles/427482a

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment)..." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Brian Cox, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Ethan Siegel: "The speed of light doesn't change when you boost your light source. Imagine throwing a ball as fast as you can. Depending on what sport you're playing, you might get all the way up to 100 miles per hour (~45 meters/second) using your hand-and-arm alone. Now, imagine you're on a train (or in a plane) moving incredibly quickly: 300 miles per hour (~134 m/s). If you throw the ball from the train, moving in the same direction, how fast does the ball move? You simply add the speeds up: 400 miles per hour, and that's your answer. Now, imagine that instead of throwing a ball, you emit a beam of light instead. Add the speed of the light to the speed of the train... and you get an answer that's completely wrong. Really, you do! This was the central idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity, but it wasn't Einstein who made this experimental discovery; it was Albert Michelson, who's pioneering work in the 1880s demonstrated that this was the case." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...amental-physics-that-came-as-total-surprises/

Joe Wolfe: "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". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring." https://www.amazon.fr/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

Edward Witten on modern physics

View: https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77

 

[Think twice]

Depressing to have to listen to a lecture by Ed on how god created the universe and all its divine laws. Pretty well every point he made is at best misinformation and worse...outright fantasy.
For instance ...Edward pretends Einsteins theory Of relativity somehow explains the Mercury precession. It doesn’t. It is a falsified calculation that Albert made up when he ALREADY knew the result For Mercury.
Its called Retrodiction by real scientists.,
Notice at the time Mercury was the only measured anomalous precession. So it was Easy for Einstein to fiddle his maths. Unfortunately for relativity , Alberts calculations are way off for the rest of the planets which at the time went unnoticed seeing as there were no observations of the preccesion of other planets. Something Relativists now ignore.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

John Norton inadvertently exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as shameless liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment as support for the constant-speed-of-light postulate of special relativity, knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Understandably, Norton and Stachel, high priests in the Einstein cult, are trying to exculpate Einstein. Actually, Einstein devised the lie.