How do you measure stationary?, you devise a method to detect motion and if you detect no motion then it is stationary, a null result is a negative result, they looked for motion and the result was negative, NO MOTION. dont try to trick us, earth shows no axial rotation.
is If the light is faster in the positive x direction wouldn’t it be slower in the negative x direction and wouldn’t that cancel out and still be in phase with the light that moves along the y axis no matter what way the ether wind was oriented I’m not really understanding this
Yay! You're one of the few that explained that Maxwell expected the speed of light to be the same in any inertial frame! Thank you thank you thank you!
14:34. You say if light get some speed traveling from halfsilver mirror to mirror down with aether on right side and then looses some speed going back against aether, doesent that actually cancel itself? Those two speeds *?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
Thank you! While I’ve always had an interest in science, other activities took precedence when I was younger and I never knew about this experiment and when I did hear about it I had no idea of it’s true goal and how & why it was conducted. Your presentation made it easy to comprehend and now I know more than I did 18 minutes ago. Much thanks!
I have a question, and I consider myself not ignorant of physics. If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector? My reasoning is thus: any velocity the light gains (or loses) due to the ether on the *outbound* leg would be lost (or regained) on the *inbound* leg, and therefore both beams would recombine at the same velocity on the final leg towards the detector. What am I missing? ty in advance.
I suffer from the same doubt. The point might be in the fact that the orange path wouldn't be perpendicular, but a diagonal due to ether drag. And thus the orange time would be greater than the yellow one and not viceversa. Still, it's difficult to me to take solid conclusions out of this experiments since it assumes too many things, like for instance that all ether is like a solid moving at the same speed relative to the earth and ether currents are not possible. It doesn't prove to me that it also doesn't exist. Maybe it's just independent to light. But that conclusion already appeared in Maxwell's equations. I don't know. Not very clear to me this subject either.
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
_"If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector"_ - It is not the (end) speed of the light that is important, but the time it takes to travel the distances. Those times depend on the direction and magnitude of the aether wind. Think of the extreme case of the light speed equal to the aether wind speed, and work out how the results would be affected.
What about scalar waves and the hysteresis effect? Longitudinal magneto dielectric waves (LMD) have no mass and potentially travel billions of time the speed of light. Electrical theory has always held the notion that there must be a field that is undefined. Faraday ,Maxwell, Tesla, Eric Dollard, and even Einstein himself, postulated this must be the case. Relativity is a theory, not a fact. Longitudinal waves travel almost instantaneously over vast distances without breaking the law of conservation. Perhaps there is no light in free space. It only manifests itself when it is in contact with the Earths envelope.
All the Michelson-Morley experiment proved is that either the speed of light is the same in all directions, or that if it varies, then length also varies such that differences in the speed of light in different directions are undetectable with an interferometer. The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest, which leads to the twins paradox.
_"The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest"_ - no experiment has ever shown that absolute speed or rest is detectable. So that is not a leap to a conclusion. _"...which leads to the twins paradox."_ - the resolution of the twin paradox does not require an absolute rest.
@renedekker9806 resolution of twin paradox doesn't exist. It's just "this one is stationary because I said so" with some math and magic spells, which should block your ability to mirror this math on 180 degrees.
Reality is that the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) that encapsulates and integrates the outcomes of the Michelson Morley experiment has been proven TRUE and extremely accurate in many experiments, and is even a part of the computations that a GPS system must make to be accurate. In other words the STR is proven by practical fact millions of times every day. Exit ether.
If the speed of light is constant because it is propagated by the eather, then when the eather is moving then the speed of light would be additive. Whether there is, or is not an eather, this experiment doesn’t demonstrate for me that there is no eather.
Please, tell us how Lorentz contraction proved that Ether exists, and then tell us how Einstein using the Lorentz contraction proved that Ether does not exist...
@14:26... something doesn't make sense. If light goes *with* the ether, shouldn't it go faster? It's assuming that the speed of light going *with* the ether is the same as the speed of light going perpendicular to the ether?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
MAJOR MISCONCEPTION. The two distances were not identical, and it would have been impossible to get distances for the 2 mirrors within a fraction of a 600 nm wavelength. They did not actually line them up and see no interference. They saw an interference pattern, and they saw that the interference pattern did not change when the apparatus was rotated.
Holy moly, you've helped me understand this so much better. I was trying to think, like "how the hell is the yellow line supposed to take longer than the orange one..?" But that doesn't matter because the lines were gonna be different anyways; it's a matter of how much the aether would change the light pattern at different angles. Rad. Thanks!
I agree with your point about the precision of the instrument but nonetheless by rotating the whole thing we should have seen a change in the phase shift and thus the pattern. Because we didn't see a change in the pattern the velocities did not change with the motion through the theoretical aether. I think the properties of the space medium are outside of what we know so what we observe is true but the assumption that mediums have the same properties is false. This leads to other assumptions like there is no absolute spacetime grid etc.
MM exp was a null result. It did not disprove aether but its results is consistent with there being no either. Einstein said aether was superfluous with his theories. The experiment also did not SHOW that c was constant but again the null result is consistent with that outcome.
Yes the way you drew the line going with the either could be confusing. A new student might say the light souce gains speed with the aether before it is slowed down by the aether (net zero speed additive effect) before bouncing into the detective telescope.
@@2tehnik You can't, because light may propagate due to an eather, which means any speed the eather may have is additive to a light speed. This experiment is poorly conceived.
The argument doesn't hold if Earth is the source of the aether, and it is being dragged along with it. Then the Earth is always stationary relative to the aether. The EM Zero-point field for example, is a field that is Lorentz invariant. You can't measure your velocity relative to it because the spectrum is complete and infinite. When it is doppler shifted, it still looks exactly the same to the detectors.
Nice video and presentation. Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0? Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether? Also that c is a constant, only if u0 and e0 are constants. Any particle or solar plasma wind intruded into the vacuum-Aether space will change e0, u0 and c. Also that solar wind increases the permittivity e0, u0 and caused a permittivity, permeability gradient around solar that is created a velocity gradient to a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is coincidence or correlation but proof?
It's not correct to use the throwing of the ball. I think a better example should have been a sound source , since we know that Galilean relativity works in the case of sound. And it resembles more with Light from the wave perspective.
"The earth is not moving" clearly it's not the case!!! Why ? Did they see NASA's photoshopped pictures? Why are they ignoring Sagnac's result who rotated the plan and got the expected interferences ?
Very interesting. I would disagree, though, with the "orange time" (at apx. 19:40) being 2d/C, as if the speed of light wasn't affected by the "aether wind" when travelling perpendicular to it, as if its "vertical" component remained the same. Let's compare the light to a wave that would grow as a circle around a single source, like when you throw a rock into a pool. Here, the pool would be moving to the left at a speed of V (the "speed of the wind"). Let's say we "drop the rock" where the axis intersect (point O). Let's call I(t) the point on the x axis where the "source" is located after time t. The radius of the circle made by the wave is R(t)=C.t, because the light (the wave) moves away from its source at a speed of C. When the light hits point D (the upper mirror), the triangle OID will have a right angle in O, it's hypotenuse is DI (length = R(t)) and its sides are OD (length d) and OI (length I(t)), so: d^2 +(V.t)^2 = (C.t)^2, hence t=d/sqrt(C^2 - V^2) and the total time is twice that. So really, one should compare C/(C^2-V^2) with 1/sqrt(C^2-V^2). The former is sqrt(C) times the latter, so it is indeed larger. If I'm not wrong...
mathematically: 1/(1-v²/c²)=1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c) 1/V(1-v²/c²).1/V(1-v²/c²)=(1/2)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)] 2/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)] we multiply the equation by L/c 2(L/c)/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[(L/c)/(1-v/c)+(L/c)/1+v/c)] which explains the result of the Michelson -Morley experiment
_"Isn't the speed of light limit just a basic premise of the STR?"_ - it a basic premise of SR, because the experimental evidence (like this M-M experiment) had shown that it was constant.
I don't understand if the light is going with the Aether and then back again, then its then going against the Aeither as well, and thereby pretty much destroys the experiment... I would think they would cancel each other out. I don't get it.... Or against the aeither and then with it - pretty much chancel itself out... Please someone explain why this would work.
I totally agree that the decrease in time taken when light moving in the direction of aether wind will cancel out with an increase in time taken when light moving against aether wind. No matter how many years you run this experiment it will always give a null result. Also, if anybody bases any assumption on this experiment that light always moves at a constant speed regardless of observer's speed, then that assumption also false. We know that Einstien used this experiment to make this assumption for Special Relativity (SR), which means SR is also wrong. Like that there are a couple of more flaws in SR.
I was under the understanding that they were trying to detect the motion of the Earth that was their experiment and they could not and in their failure to detect the motion of the Earth they approved the Aether am I wrong I really believe not
What if the aether was replaced by the air medium & the air medium is stationary .. so that the light can travel at constant speed in any direction ? (if we pour water into a glass that filled with air, the water replaces the air. Similerly in earth what if the aether was replaced by the air ?) Was that experiment done in vacuum or in space ?
@@PhysicsHigh Yes but i think that Vihan Roy meant that possibly the aetherwind might not be able to penetrate the basement walls. That's not necessarily the same thing as aether existing in the basement.
I'm subbing just because of how well you presented everything. I was looking for a way to explain this experiment to a flat earth community who believe this experiment proves the earth is stationary. -_- thanks again!
Surely if the horizontal beam is being effected by the aether in one direction, that effect will be equally and proportionally cancelled out when it goes in the exact opposite direction with the return. Unless the aether suddenly changes as it's on the way back... I'm saying that it seems logical to conclude that if there was an aether effecting the lights velocity, you still wouldn't be able to detect it that way. The same goes for the vertical beam in your diagram. Meaning that with or without an aether, the beams should still meet back again at the same time. There is a question maybe too about sensitivity. Because the light moves so fast, the, or any effect, may not be visible at such short distances.
@@PhysicsHigh Thank you for responding, and so quickly. You should know, I'm a wood machinist by trade, so not as capable of understanding this as say an accomplished student of physics, at least not with maths. I have watched that video you mentioned also. But to be honest with you, as soon as I see equations, I lose track of the logic chain. I understand that there could be differences when spinning the concrete block in that famous experiment, IF there was a moving aether. That it might vary in velocity between to and from the mirror. But because the speed of light is so fast, it seems possible and even likely, that the apparatus might not be sensitive enough to pick up these differences in velocity distortion anyway. That either way, it's likely to get a null result. That the speed of light appears constant and both beams should meet at the same time, to either cancel each other out, or both hit the sensor at the same time. I've seen two videos on this, one where both beams meet and hit the sensor, another video diagram/explanation, where they both meet together and nothing hits the sensor. Is there something in the maths video, which shows that the apparatus IS sensitive enough to pick up the speed of light if it was effected by a moving aether like medium? Doesn't the thickness or bandwidth of the light wave need to be smaller to get a more precise reading? Meaning that to the extent that the waves of said beams fluctuate, is at least the extent of your margin of error. Sorry if I write too much.. I'm doing a crash course in flat earth versus globe and hit a wall on this interferometer situation with the aether, or a moving planet Earth.
I deduced that in the case of the interference experiment, with the interferometer in the horizontal plane, the light has exactly the same speed in all directions. This is because light (photons) is coupled with the mass density field of the earth. Field that leaves the substance of the earth and emanates in the space in the immediate vicinity. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium is proved by Fizeau's experiment. Experiment that accurately verifies Fresnel's formula, called partial ether entrainment. Fresnel's formula is easy to find, without any relativistic metaphysics, if the density of light and the density of the environment and the density of the earth are added together. And it is not about the entrainment of the ether, but it is about the variation of the refractive index of the transparent medium, when it is moving (in translation) compared to the situation when it is at rest. The negative term in Fresnel's formula is due to the coupling of light with the density field of the planet. Because he is in solidarity with the planet.
Both Michelson and Morley assumed that the speed of light is not altered upon reflection by a moving mirror. This critical error produced a small variation in the distance traveled by the light between mirrors in the rest frame of ether. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/speed-of-light
Sample question :Lorenz factor: K²=1/a²=[1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)] with b=v/c,a=V(1-v²/c²) [V:square] k²=1/2[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)] 2k=a[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)] necessarily the multiplication of the mathematical equation by a constancy for example L / c must be respected, that is to say: 2L/ac=2kL/c=a.L/c.[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)] there is no need of any physical hypothesis to explain this mathematical equation which explains the M-M experience. it is not mathematically possible to find : k² =/= [1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)]
Sagnac experiment! Proved the aether existed! MM above thus proves the earth is stationary! So much for Helio-centrism! ...and this throws out Einstein's Relativity also, because it's built on the premise that the aether does not exist!
Actually, no it didn't... in fact the Sagnac experiment did not line up with the experimental predictions of the aether hypothesis.... that is the interference should vary depending upon direction, not just motion itself.... It along with the many other experiments which did not align with aether hypothesis predictions is what brought about special relativity. In fact the Sagnac effect can be derived from special relativity.
Maxwell knew light is a wave. All waves have constant speed, depended by the medium. c = constant for each medium, and for "luminoforus eather" or empty space is c=(μο*εο)^1/2. Please review this video since its used for educational purposes (high school).
I add some aether info as follows. (1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 15 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs. (2) The MMXs were never null. (3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind. (4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains. (5) All MMX's suffer a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that gets larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right). (6) Secondly the Michelson Morley MMX, & the Morley Miller MMXs, suffered a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didn't mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to any change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being affected by the wind).
i feel that when the light is moving at the direction ether is flowing, its belocity is greater than when ît moves against the ether. So when these two are added, we get a constant velocity..
They need to be doing the experiment in the Aether and not in their basement for it to be of any meaning. That's where Einstein's theory of relativity explains everything.
To me, all this LIGO project is the repetition of M-M experiment, only with the new equipment. This means, that if they've found gravitational waves there, Ether is also proven. But I would be very glad to be corrected...
I'm not on any side, tbh I'm just diving into the field and learning as I go. But this doesn't cover the sagnac experiment results, and the fact that laser gyros in every single plane work. As for why this experiment failed, anyone who has studied black holes knows why - in aether based physics they believe that the sun "pull" the aether around itself in a "whirlpool", similar to the egosphere of a relativistic black hole. I have a lot more to learn on both sides, but they seem to think that gravity is the incompressible aether being "pulled" into the earth and speeding up as the volume decreases as you approach earth, explaining the behaviour of gravity decreasing with distance as expected. If you want to really disprove aether you need to do what nobody else seems to want to do and tackle sagnac.
To add to the ending about possible conclusions. Another hypothesis to account for the results was that the ether moved locally with the earth, but that was also proven to be incorrect.
@@zegonzales1 No, in fact light waves do not need a medium to propogate. Light waves are comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field neither of which need a medium to act on. Furthermore not one experiment has proven that ether exists or that it's even remotely necessary.
@@zegonzales1 _"The propagation of eletromagnetic waves say that"_ - the equations that describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves (the Maxwell equations), say that an aether does not exist.
Dr Bob the science guy lead me here and I'm so glad he did. It has always got me so frustrated when pseudo science fools take the MM experiment and mangle the meaning the way they do so thank you, thank you and thank you for making this great video! New sub right here. Keep up the great works and keep up the fight! (I'm also Canadian Thomas, Just posting from my new channel)
The michelson-morley experiment was only one of very many that proved the Earth was stationary ,in fact no experiment has ever proven motion,,,,, let that sink in
I don't understand the statement at 15:48 that in six months the ether wind would be going in the other direction. If this was believed to be a relative wind experienced due to the earth's movement through the stationary ether, it would never blow in the other direction.
If there is an ether the light would speed up with the ether when traveling to the first mirror and then slow down against the ether when traveling back resulting in the same speed at the detector whether there is an ether or not. Doesn't anyone else see the fundemental flaw in this experiment or am I missing something?
The science society at the time mistaken about Aether is wind can drift through and not attaches to matter or molecules. Armed with this mistake Michelson set out to design his interferometer expecting to measure Aether wind velocity to be equal or close to earth’s orbital velocity. However what Michelson & Morley get was a residual but orbital speed as I expected. That is because Aether attaches to matter, the interferometer including earth and move at equal speed, as if Aether didn’t exists but it exist. A mentally weak person can easily latched on some theory that is highly praised, celebrated and well branded without much scrutiny. Like wearing a $10,000 Rolex. One may think that “If I understand theories offered by one of 200-IQ I’m not far from 200-IQ”.
All the questions about the precision and velocities are irrelevant because the experiment should have seen a phase shift differential and therefore a change in the pattern but it didn't.
This is yet another video misconstruing the matter. The experiment did not prove there was no aether, and Einstein himself said so. Indeed, Einstein said there must be an aether in order for space to have properties. The ball throwing example atop a moving train is not a proper analogy. A ball is not a wave. Why not do it with sound? If you did, you’d discover that the speed of sound is also independent of the speed of its source. The speed of the sound of a train whistle at a given location is the same regardless of whether the train is moving. The only difference is that the pitch become higher if the train is approaching and lower if it is going away. That’s the Doppler shift. The same goes for light. Speed remains the same, but the wavelength is shifted either towards the blue or the red. With sound, it is because the speed of sound is only a property of the medium that is disturbed and has nothing to do with its source. Take also the example of a Jet fighter. I once saw one pass overhead, and there was no sound at all, but a second after it passed, I heard the roar of its engines and a small sonic boom. The plane had outrun the sound of its own engines. If you measured the speed of the sound along the direction of the plane and perpendicular to it, it would be the same, notwithstanding that the sound in the jet’s direction of movement would be facing a “headwind” of like 1000mph. I’m baffled over the logic of the MM experiment. One more thing: modern physicists quietly acknowledge the aether; they just call it the quantum fields. We know, for example, that electricity and magnetism propagate along fields that exist. But does anyone know what an electric field or a magnetic field in a vacuum is made of? No one. It’s a vacuum. Nothing is there, or so it seems. If you consider that QF theory posits that matter and energy particles are vibrations, disturbances, in the underlying fluidic fields that permeate the universe, you can then start to say: wait a minute, maybe there is an aether, as Einstein himself said there must be. It’s just irrelevant to calculating the “absolute” speed of light, since there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame.
M&M experiment "failed" because the aether in close to the earth is dense and not permeable. It also moves along with the earth. No aether wind to "see". The experiment should be performed far from earth where the aether is not as dense and compressed. The aether is pushed aside by matter but retains its position like a girdle on your body. The dense aether also is instrumental in causing the gravity that pushes us towards the center of mass of the earth. It also causes the casimir effect, but on a smaller scale.
Eu am dedus ca in cazul experimentului interferential, cu interferometrul in plan orizontal, lumina are in toate directiile exact aceeasi viteza. Asta deoarece lumina (fotonii) se cupleaza cu campul de densitate masica al pamantului. Camp ce pleaca din substanta pamantului si emana in spatiul din imediata vecinatate. Cuplajul luminii cu campul de densitate al mediului transparent este dovedit de experimentul lui Fizeau. Experimet care verifica cu precizie formula lui Fresnel, zisa de antrenare partiala a eterului. Formula lui Fresnel se gaseste usor, fara nicio metafizica relativista, daca se aduna densitate luminii si densitatea mediului si densitatea pamantului. Si nu este vorba de antrenarea eterului, ci este vorba de variatia indicelui de refractie al mediului transaparent, cand este in miscare (in translatie) fata de situatia cand este in repaus. Termenul negativ din formula lui Fresnel este datorat cuplajului luminii cu campul de densitate al planetei. Deoarece este solidar cu planeta.
High School Physics Explained got the experiment right. But might want to return to school to re-analyze the result in reference to the earths Motion or Non Motion.
Speed of light in vacuum is dependent only on the electric and magnetic properties of vacuum - one of the really weird results of Maxwell's Equations that got people a little shook.
I'm sorry to say that you failed to explain how the MM experiment failed... I don't encourage people explaining something they don't really understand because that could make other people more confused, especially in physics.
Can you explain to me why the light going with the eather and against the eather in the returning is slower than the other light in the experiment? Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?
@@brenosantana1458_"Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?"_ - it doesn't. Do the calculations and you'll find out. Or intuitively, think of the extreme case and suppose light has the same speed as the aether wind. Then the light travels very fast with the aether, but will never manage to come back against the aether.
The vertical paths would travel a greater distance if the aether existed, not the other way around since the light would have traveled a greater distance on a diagonal. The horizontal distances cancel each other. Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school. Please read my book, Infinity, Time, Death and Thought. Another tidbit - why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?
_"The horizontal distances cancel each other."_ - it's not the distance that counts, but the time to travel that distance. And those don't "cancel each other". _"Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school"_ - you should have stayed in, then you would have learned how to calculate this properly. _"why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?"_ - because it is a scientific theory (look up the definition of a scientific theory).
You cannot conclude that the aether doesn't exist based on that experiment. What you can conclude is that the "aether wind" doesn't have the same effect on light as atmospheric wind has on a baseball. Plus everyone knows that the aether is compose up as Planck size energy bubbles.duh✌️❤️😀👍
Why there hasn't been offered a third assumption. Aether is moving together with the Earth? Because there is some shifting. It is a really small shift. Which shows daly rotation of the Earth itself. And this kind of shifting depends on the latitude location. On the equator it is maximum along on the poles it shows absolutely no shift at all. Would you explain this "strange" behaviour of the light? I could. There is an aether and it goes along the gravitational field of the massive objects like planets, suns, black holes ext. otherwise no one can explain the existence of a black hole because nothing can exist below the event horizon according to non aether theories.
That assumption was made, in addition to stationary aether, partial aether drag and Earth fixed aether were also postulated....... the problem being that no experiments gave results consistent with whatever assumptions (moving, fixed or partially fixed).
The m.m. experiment disproves an assumption of a static ether. Yet countless youtube videos talk about "dark matter"... There is no way around metaphysics.
Michelson/Morley test is a bunk idea, when it comes to measuring aether wind, it's essentially similar to measuring electromagnetic radiation near the surface of the sun (you're overloaded with the sun's magnetic energy). The Earth is also a giant magnet; trying to measure an "aether wind" would be near impossible. If there is actually aether (an electromagnetic field that fills and makes up the universe), then it would be like the turbulence in water, from a massive spinning sphere; the surface of the sphere would be even layers of pressure, extending outward from the surface (if not from the center mass, in the case of aether). This is what you're seeing in the later of this video (here: ruclips.net/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/видео.html ); layers of electromagnetic pressure, extending outward from the surface. You would have to be outside the planet's turbulent field of aether, to actually measure aether wind.
The experiment failed to follow the "science narrative", it proved stationary earthy!
You got it!
How do you measure stationary?, you devise a method to detect motion and if you detect no motion then it is stationary, a null result is a negative result, they looked for motion and the result was negative, NO MOTION. dont try to trick us, earth shows no axial rotation.
Helped me quite much with a presentation i was doing on special relativity. You have my gratitude.
is If the light is faster in the positive x direction wouldn’t it be slower in the negative x direction and wouldn’t that cancel out and still be in phase with the light that moves along the y axis no matter what way the ether wind was oriented I’m not really understanding this
Yay! You're one of the few that explained that Maxwell expected the speed of light to be the same in any inertial frame! Thank you thank you thank you!
14:34. You say if light get some speed traveling from halfsilver mirror to mirror down with aether on right side and then looses some speed going back against aether, doesent that actually cancel itself? Those two speeds *?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
yes it was as I had an error in it. I plan to fix, its on the to do list
Error is fixed - See ruclips.net/video/JKoz28zSzqw/видео.html
The Globe is a theory and a physical impossibility.
How can something actual be impossible, that’s a dumb statement
@@Roadrunners13 You failed to account for your assumption being false. It's not an actuality at all.
Thank you!
While I’ve always had an interest in science, other activities took precedence when I was younger and I never knew about this experiment and when I did hear about it I had no idea of it’s true goal and how & why it was conducted. Your presentation made it easy to comprehend and now I know more than I did 18 minutes ago.
Much thanks!
Thank you so much for the video! I think I do get something about the experiment finally.
I have a question, and I consider myself not ignorant of physics.
If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector?
My reasoning is thus: any velocity the light gains (or loses) due to the ether on the *outbound* leg would be lost (or regained) on the *inbound* leg, and therefore both beams would recombine at the same velocity on the final leg towards the detector. What am I missing? ty in advance.
Exactly my thought.
There must be another angle to this.
If you'll excuse the pun.
I suffer from the same doubt. The point might be in the fact that the orange path wouldn't be perpendicular, but a diagonal due to ether drag. And thus the orange time would be greater than the yellow one and not viceversa. Still, it's difficult to me to take solid conclusions out of this experiments since it assumes too many things, like for instance that all ether is like a solid moving at the same speed relative to the earth and ether currents are not possible. It doesn't prove to me that it also doesn't exist. Maybe it's just independent to light. But that conclusion already appeared in Maxwell's equations. I don't know. Not very clear to me this subject either.
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
_"If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector"_ - It is not the (end) speed of the light that is important, but the time it takes to travel the distances. Those times depend on the direction and magnitude of the aether wind. Think of the extreme case of the light speed equal to the aether wind speed, and work out how the results would be affected.
What about scalar waves and the hysteresis effect? Longitudinal magneto dielectric waves (LMD) have no mass and potentially travel billions of time the speed of light. Electrical theory has always held the notion that there must be a field that is undefined. Faraday ,Maxwell, Tesla, Eric Dollard, and even Einstein himself, postulated this must be the case. Relativity is a theory, not a fact. Longitudinal waves travel almost instantaneously over vast distances without breaking the law of conservation. Perhaps there is no light in free space. It only manifests itself when it is in contact with the Earths envelope.
All the Michelson-Morley experiment proved is that either the speed of light is the same in all directions, or that if it varies, then length also varies such that differences in the speed of light in different directions are undetectable with an interferometer. The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest, which leads to the twins paradox.
_"The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest"_ - no experiment has ever shown that absolute speed or rest is detectable. So that is not a leap to a conclusion.
_"...which leads to the twins paradox."_ - the resolution of the twin paradox does not require an absolute rest.
@renedekker9806 resolution of twin paradox doesn't exist. It's just "this one is stationary because I said so" with some math and magic spells, which should block your ability to mirror this math on 180 degrees.
Reality is that the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) that encapsulates and integrates the outcomes of the Michelson Morley experiment has been proven TRUE and extremely accurate in many experiments, and is even a part of the computations that a GPS system must make to be accurate. In other words the STR is proven by practical fact millions of times every day. Exit ether.
Now, you've got to prove the earth is spinning.
the earth doesn't revolve around the sun
If the speed of light is constant because it is propagated by the eather, then when the eather is moving then the speed of light would be additive. Whether there is, or is not an eather, this experiment doesn’t demonstrate for me that there is no eather.
@14:20, shouldn't the orange time be greater than the yellow time? Because yellow moves in the same direction as the ether.
No. Check my other video on the topic. I go through the maths
Please, tell us how Lorentz contraction proved that Ether exists, and then tell us how Einstein using the Lorentz contraction proved that Ether does not exist...
Easier to disprove the presence of eather that disprove the there was no detectable movement of the earth..
@14:26... something doesn't make sense. If light goes *with* the ether, shouldn't it go faster? It's assuming that the speed of light going *with* the ether is the same as the speed of light going perpendicular to the ether?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
MAJOR MISCONCEPTION. The two distances were not identical, and it would have been impossible to get distances for the 2 mirrors within a fraction of a 600 nm wavelength. They did not actually line them up and see no interference. They saw an interference pattern, and they saw that the interference pattern did not change when the apparatus was rotated.
Holy moly, you've helped me understand this so much better. I was trying to think, like "how the hell is the yellow line supposed to take longer than the orange one..?" But that doesn't matter because the lines were gonna be different anyways; it's a matter of how much the aether would change the light pattern at different angles. Rad. Thanks!
I agree with your point about the precision of the instrument but nonetheless by rotating the whole thing we should have seen a change in the phase shift and thus the pattern. Because we didn't see a change in the pattern the velocities did not change with the motion through the theoretical aether. I think the properties of the space medium are outside of what we know so what we observe is true but the assumption that mediums have the same properties is false. This leads to other assumptions like there is no absolute spacetime grid etc.
Michelson Morley experiment shows there is no aether. Does it also show that speed of light is a constant? How?
MM exp was a null result. It did not disprove aether but its results is consistent with there being no either. Einstein said aether was superfluous with his theories. The experiment also did not SHOW that c was constant but again the null result is consistent with that outcome.
Yes the way you drew the line going with the either could be confusing. A new student might say the light souce gains speed with the aether before it is slowed down by the aether (net zero speed additive effect) before bouncing into the detective telescope.
So how do we know that there's no such effect?
@@2tehnik You can't, because light may propagate due to an eather, which means any speed the eather may have is additive to a light speed. This experiment is poorly conceived.
So any time you can’t explain something in physics you just state “theory of special relativity”?
Kids use that line in classrooms
If you don´t understand what you are saying...
Which experiment concludes the earth is moving? I mean, you discard the first hipothesys with a simple ``obviously``
They asked which experiments prove the earth is moving, not what you think may be evidence it's moving.
The argument doesn't hold if Earth is the source of the aether, and it is being dragged along with it. Then the Earth is always stationary relative to the aether. The EM Zero-point field for example, is a field that is Lorentz invariant. You can't measure your velocity relative to it because the spectrum is complete and infinite. When it is doppler shifted, it still looks exactly the same to the detectors.
Interesting. So does that mean that the aether in fact would have a refractive index assuming it existed?
The fairies at the bottom of my garden said yes.
Nice video and presentation.
Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0?
Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether?
Also that c is a constant, only if u0 and e0 are constants. Any particle or solar plasma wind intruded into the vacuum-Aether space will change e0, u0 and c.
Also that solar wind increases the permittivity e0, u0 and caused a permittivity, permeability gradient around solar that is created a velocity gradient to a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is coincidence or correlation but proof?
It's not correct to use the throwing of the ball. I think a better example should have been a sound source , since we know that Galilean relativity works in the case of sound. And it resembles more with Light from the wave perspective.
Wouldn't this simply prove that no drag force can be generated by a pressureless vacuum of space?
Excellent explanation and diagrams.
So the earth is not moving . Obviously
"The earth is not moving" clearly it's not the case!!! Why ? Did they see NASA's photoshopped pictures?
Why are they ignoring Sagnac's result who rotated the plan and got the expected interferences ?
Uhm, the experiment was done in 1887.
1887: Zero Drifts
1905 Invokes No
Medium Of Light
1913: Whirl wind
Displace Fringes
Waves: Indicates
A Medium, Exists
Very interesting.
I would disagree, though, with the "orange time" (at apx. 19:40) being 2d/C, as if the speed of light wasn't affected by the "aether wind" when travelling perpendicular to it, as if its "vertical" component remained the same.
Let's compare the light to a wave that would grow as a circle around a single source, like when you throw a rock into a pool. Here, the pool would be moving to the left at a speed of V (the "speed of the wind"). Let's say we "drop the rock" where the axis intersect (point O). Let's call I(t) the point on the x axis where the "source" is located after time t. The radius of the circle made by the wave is R(t)=C.t, because the light (the wave) moves away from its source at a speed of C.
When the light hits point D (the upper mirror), the triangle OID will have a right angle in O, it's hypotenuse is DI (length = R(t)) and its sides are OD (length d) and OI (length I(t)), so: d^2 +(V.t)^2 = (C.t)^2, hence t=d/sqrt(C^2 - V^2) and the total time is twice that.
So really, one should compare C/(C^2-V^2) with 1/sqrt(C^2-V^2). The former is sqrt(C) times the latter, so it is indeed larger.
If I'm not wrong...
thanks for the reply - I will have to look at this closely
- sorry for the late reply - you are right and I will need to fix
You're welcome :) I did my own calculations because your video is so interesting and captivated me.
Error is now fixed - See ruclips.net/video/JKoz28zSzqw/видео.html
mathematically:
1/(1-v²/c²)=1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)
1/V(1-v²/c²).1/V(1-v²/c²)=(1/2)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)]
2/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)]
we multiply the equation by L/c
2(L/c)/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[(L/c)/(1-v/c)+(L/c)/1+v/c)]
which explains the result of the Michelson -Morley experiment
Is it just me or does the video have no sound from 4:49 to 5:58
You right. Didn’t realise. My bad. Though it only lasts till 5:11 or there abouts.
This experiment was performed at Case Western University and you seemed to imply it was done in the basement of their home.
superbly explained! hats off! The intuition that you provided was really nice professor .
Isn't the speed of light limit just a basic premise of the STR?
_"Isn't the speed of light limit just a basic premise of the STR?"_ - it a basic premise of SR, because the experimental evidence (like this M-M experiment) had shown that it was constant.
I don't understand if the light is going with the Aether and then back again, then its then going against the Aeither as well, and thereby pretty much destroys the experiment... I would think they would cancel each other out.
I don't get it.... Or against the aeither and then with it - pretty much chancel itself out... Please someone explain why this would work.
I totally agree that the decrease in time taken when light moving in the direction of aether wind will cancel out with an increase in time taken when light moving against aether wind. No matter how many years you run this experiment it will always give a null result.
Also, if anybody bases any assumption on this experiment that light always moves at a constant speed regardless of observer's speed, then that assumption also false.
We know that Einstien used this experiment to make this assumption for Special Relativity (SR), which means SR is also wrong.
Like that there are a couple of more flaws in SR.
I was under the understanding that they were trying to detect the motion of the Earth that was their experiment and they could not and in their failure to detect the motion of the Earth they approved the Aether am I wrong I really believe not
What if the aether was replaced by the air medium & the air medium is stationary .. so that the light can travel at constant speed in any direction ?
(if we pour water into a glass that filled with air, the water replaces the air. Similerly in earth what if the aether was replaced by the air ?)
Was that experiment done in vacuum or in space ?
There is eather in space in the theory. I don't believe in "space".
Wait, you skipped the explanation you promised at the end.
If the experiment was done in a basement how can they be sure that an aether wind could even penetrate the walls?
Thanks again sir.
Aether is the supposed medium for light. So if you can see in a basement then the aether would be there
@@PhysicsHigh Yes but i think that Vihan Roy meant that possibly the aetherwind might not be able to penetrate the basement walls. That's not necessarily the same thing as aether existing in the basement.
But there could have been aether which is static, and hence doesn't influence the speed of light!
It is not static, search lunar wave and crow777
I'm subbing just because of how well you presented everything. I was looking for a way to explain this experiment to a flat earth community who believe this experiment proves the earth is stationary. -_- thanks again!
+I Am Thankyou.
+I Am Thankyou
@@nexen1041 what do you mean?
@GRAPHENE IS IN THE MASKS, SWABS and PCR TESTS!!! no, it is.. what makes you think it isn’t?
nice to see a flat earth fella here
Surely if the horizontal beam is being effected by the aether in one direction, that effect will be equally and proportionally cancelled out when it goes in the exact opposite direction with the return. Unless the aether suddenly changes as it's on the way back...
I'm saying that it seems logical to conclude that if there was an aether effecting the lights velocity, you still wouldn't be able to detect it that way. The same goes for the vertical beam in your diagram.
Meaning that with or without an aether, the beams should still meet back again at the same time.
There is a question maybe too about sensitivity.
Because the light moves so fast, the, or any effect, may not be visible at such short distances.
You nee to watch my mathematical analysis video.
@@PhysicsHigh Thank you for responding, and so quickly. You should know, I'm a wood machinist by trade, so not as capable of understanding this as say an accomplished student of physics, at least not with maths.
I have watched that video you mentioned also. But to be honest with you, as soon as I see equations, I lose track of the logic chain.
I understand that there could be differences when spinning the concrete block in that famous experiment, IF there was a moving aether. That it might vary in velocity between to and from the mirror. But because the speed of light is so fast, it seems possible and even likely, that the apparatus might not be sensitive enough to pick up these differences in velocity distortion anyway. That either way, it's likely to get a null result. That the speed of light appears constant and both beams should meet at the same time, to either cancel each other out, or both hit the sensor at the same time.
I've seen two videos on this, one where both beams meet and hit the sensor, another video diagram/explanation, where they both meet together and nothing hits the sensor.
Is there something in the maths video, which shows that the apparatus IS sensitive enough to pick up the speed of light if it was effected by a moving aether like medium?
Doesn't the thickness or bandwidth of the light wave need to be smaller to get a more precise reading? Meaning that to the extent that the waves of said beams fluctuate, is at least the extent of your margin of error.
Sorry if I write too much.. I'm doing a crash course in flat earth versus globe and hit a wall on this interferometer situation with the aether, or a moving planet Earth.
The Earth is flat with Firmament.
Like your brain?
Yellow line on the way to the mirror should speed up and on the way back to the half mirror should slow down. On avg equaling orange avg speed.
thank you so much
Best explained....
Do a video just on what is constructive and destructive interference and related.
I deduced that in the case of the interference experiment, with the interferometer in the horizontal plane, the light has exactly the same speed in all directions. This is because light (photons) is coupled with the mass density field of the earth. Field that leaves the substance of the earth and emanates in the space in the immediate vicinity. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium is proved by Fizeau's experiment. Experiment that accurately verifies Fresnel's formula, called partial ether entrainment. Fresnel's formula is easy to find, without any relativistic metaphysics, if the density of light and the density of the environment and the density of the earth are added together. And it is not about the entrainment of the ether, but it is about the variation of the refractive index of the transparent medium, when it is moving (in translation) compared to the situation when it is at rest. The negative term in Fresnel's formula is due to the coupling of light with the density field of the planet. Because he is in solidarity with the planet.
Did they think the transverse beams would be "blown off course" sideways by the weather wind?
Both Michelson and Morley assumed that the speed of light is not altered upon reflection by a moving mirror. This critical error produced a small variation in the distance traveled by the light between mirrors in the rest frame of ether.
sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/speed-of-light
Was the appendix video removed? I'd love to see it!
Here it is - See ruclips.net/video/JKoz28zSzqw/видео.html
@@PhysicsHigh , Please watch on the Rob Skiba RUclips channel: Do official government documents confirm Flat Earth and the Firmament?
Sample question :Lorenz factor: K²=1/a²=[1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)] with b=v/c,a=V(1-v²/c²) [V:square]
k²=1/2[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)]
2k=a[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)]
necessarily the multiplication of the mathematical equation by a constancy for example L / c must be respected, that is to say:
2L/ac=2kL/c=a.L/c.[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)]
there is no need of any physical hypothesis to explain this mathematical equation which explains the M-M experience.
it is not mathematically possible to find :
k² =/= [1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)]
Sagnac experiment! Proved the aether existed!
MM above thus proves the earth is stationary!
So much for Helio-centrism!
...and this throws out Einstein's Relativity also, because it's built on the premise that the aether does not exist!
Actually, no it didn't... in fact the Sagnac experiment did not line up with the experimental predictions of the aether hypothesis.... that is the interference should vary depending upon direction, not just motion itself.... It along with the many other experiments which did not align with aether hypothesis predictions is what brought about special relativity. In fact the Sagnac effect can be derived from special relativity.
I'm sick of the lies of Aether fanboys.
Maxwell knew light is a wave. All waves have constant speed, depended by the medium. c = constant for each medium, and for "luminoforus eather" or empty space is c=(μο*εο)^1/2. Please review this video since its used for educational purposes (high school).
what are you trying to say? nothing he said was wrong regarding about maxwell's equation for the speed of light and how scientists interpreted it.
Great explanation. Thanks.
Correction: The speed of the train relative to the air is HALF the magnitude of the difference between the 2 measured speeds of the ball.
I add some aether info as follows.
(1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 15 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.
(2) The MMXs were never null.
(3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind.
(4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains.
(5) All MMX's suffer a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that gets larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).
(6) Secondly the Michelson Morley MMX, & the Morley Miller MMXs, suffered a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didn't mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to any change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being affected by the wind).
i feel that when the light is moving at the direction ether is flowing, its belocity is greater than when ît moves against the ether. So when these two are added, we get a constant velocity..
You need to see my follow up video that explains the maths.
Curoiusly if the earth is stationary , what does that mean for the whole theory ? doesn`t prove anything then ?
@@dianau4944 wow cool! Can you also measure its speed ?
THANK YOU SIR...............
They need to be doing the experiment in the Aether and not in their basement for it to be of any meaning. That's where Einstein's theory of relativity explains everything.
There is an ether. It's in the order of 10^-34 so this experiment is invalid for EMR aether detection. BOOM!
To me, all this LIGO project is the repetition of M-M experiment, only with the new equipment.
This means, that if they've found gravitational waves there, Ether is also proven.
But I would be very glad to be corrected...
I'm not on any side, tbh I'm just diving into the field and learning as I go.
But this doesn't cover the sagnac experiment results, and the fact that laser gyros in every single plane work.
As for why this experiment failed, anyone who has studied black holes knows why - in aether based physics they believe that the sun "pull" the aether around itself in a "whirlpool", similar to the egosphere of a relativistic black hole.
I have a lot more to learn on both sides, but they seem to think that gravity is the incompressible aether being "pulled" into the earth and speeding up as the volume decreases as you approach earth, explaining the behaviour of gravity decreasing with distance as expected.
If you want to really disprove aether you need to do what nobody else seems to want to do and tackle sagnac.
To add to the ending about possible conclusions. Another hypothesis to account for the results was that the ether moved locally with the earth, but that was also proven to be incorrect.
The most "incorrect" is to say the Aether does not exist . Any wave needs a medium to propagate , thus , no medium , no waves .
@@zegonzales1 Wait are you saying that ether does exist??
@@blakeshepherd7576 I'm not saying that . The propagation of eletromagnetic waves say that .
@@zegonzales1 No, in fact light waves do not need a medium to propogate. Light waves are comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field neither of which need a medium to act on. Furthermore not one experiment has proven that ether exists or that it's even remotely necessary.
@@zegonzales1 _"The propagation of eletromagnetic waves say that"_ - the equations that describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves (the Maxwell equations), say that an aether does not exist.
Dr Bob the science guy lead me here and I'm so glad he did. It has always got me so frustrated when pseudo science fools take the MM experiment and mangle the meaning the way they do so thank you, thank you and thank you for making this great video! New sub right here. Keep up the great works and keep up the fight! (I'm also Canadian Thomas, Just posting from my new channel)
The michelson-morley experiment was only one of very many that proved the Earth was stationary ,in fact no experiment has ever proven motion,,,,, let that sink in
@@twentytwenty1968 no, you poor uneducated fool, the M&M exp proved no such thing. hahahahaha
Agreed. I'm sick of geocentrists and FE'ERS pushing this narrative.
@GRAPHENE IS IN THE MASKS, SWABS and PCR TESTS!!! HAHAHAHAHA. OK then...
I'm wondering how the pool of mercury was able to float a concrete block on top of it without being displaced by its weight?
A concrete block isn't very dense at all.
Mercury is over 5.6 times as heavy, per volume.
I don't understand the statement at 15:48 that in six months the ether wind would be going in the other direction. If this was believed to be a relative wind experienced due to the earth's movement through the stationary ether, it would never blow in the other direction.
You are correct. My bad. Thanks
If there is an ether the light would speed up with the ether when traveling to the first mirror and then slow down against the ether when traveling back resulting in the same speed at the detector whether there is an ether or not.
Doesn't anyone else see the fundemental flaw in this experiment or am I missing something?
I do
You've obviously not heard of George Sagnac's experimefiment 1913, shows opposite. Search it and ask why he was ignored thanks for the video
Lets just risk one possible answer just because we don't like it and lets all dive into a theory instead.
Thank you very much! It helped me understand the concept of this experiment.
The science society at the time mistaken about Aether is wind can drift through and not attaches to matter or molecules.
Armed with this mistake Michelson set out to design his interferometer expecting to measure Aether wind velocity to be equal or close to earth’s orbital velocity.
However what Michelson & Morley get was a residual but orbital speed as I expected.
That is because Aether attaches to matter, the interferometer including earth and move at equal speed, as if Aether didn’t exists but it exist.
A mentally weak person can easily latched on some theory that is highly praised, celebrated and well branded without much scrutiny. Like wearing a $10,000 Rolex. One may think that “If I understand theories offered by one of 200-IQ I’m not far from 200-IQ”.
Train background had that optical illusion where you can flip the rotation/direction of a repeating image. Thought that was cool.
All the questions about the precision and velocities are irrelevant because the experiment should have seen a phase shift differential and therefore a change in the pattern but it didn't.
This is yet another video misconstruing the matter. The experiment did not prove there was no aether, and Einstein himself said so. Indeed, Einstein said there must be an aether in order for space to have properties. The ball throwing example atop a moving train is not a proper analogy. A ball is not a wave. Why not do it with sound? If you did, you’d discover that the speed of sound is also independent of the speed of its source. The speed of the sound of a train whistle at a given location is the same regardless of whether the train is moving. The only difference is that the pitch become higher if the train is approaching and lower if it is going away. That’s the Doppler shift. The same goes for light. Speed remains the same, but the wavelength is shifted either towards the blue or the red. With sound, it is because the speed of sound is only a property of the medium that is disturbed and has nothing to do with its source. Take also the example of a Jet fighter. I once saw one pass overhead, and there was no sound at all, but a second after it passed, I heard the roar of its engines and a small sonic boom. The plane had outrun the sound of its own engines. If you measured the speed of the sound along the direction of the plane and perpendicular to it, it would be the same, notwithstanding that the sound in the jet’s direction of movement would be facing a “headwind” of like 1000mph. I’m baffled over the logic of the MM experiment. One more thing: modern physicists quietly acknowledge the aether; they just call it the quantum fields. We know, for example, that electricity and magnetism propagate along fields that exist. But does anyone know what an electric field or a magnetic field in a vacuum is made of? No one. It’s a vacuum. Nothing is there, or so it seems. If you consider that QF theory posits that matter and energy particles are vibrations, disturbances, in the underlying fluidic fields that permeate the universe, you can then start to say: wait a minute, maybe there is an aether, as Einstein himself said there must be. It’s just irrelevant to calculating the “absolute” speed of light, since there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame.
M&M experiment "failed" because the aether in close to the earth is dense and not permeable. It also moves along with the earth. No aether wind to "see". The experiment should be performed far from earth where the aether is not as dense and compressed. The aether is pushed aside by matter but retains its position like a girdle on your body. The dense aether also is instrumental in causing the gravity that pushes us towards the center of mass of the earth. It also causes the casimir effect, but on a smaller scale.
why did they wait that long (6 month) instead of rotating their apparatus to 180 degree???
Both arms have the same dimensions and the same geometry, so rotating the apparatus wouldnt change the previous result.
@@charleslyell3748 could you elaborate, please?
@@charleslyell3748 An MMX to work must be rotating/rotated.
Eu am dedus ca in cazul experimentului interferential, cu interferometrul in plan orizontal, lumina are in toate directiile exact aceeasi viteza. Asta deoarece lumina (fotonii) se cupleaza cu campul de densitate masica al pamantului. Camp ce pleaca din substanta pamantului si emana in spatiul din imediata vecinatate. Cuplajul luminii cu campul de densitate al mediului transparent este dovedit de experimentul lui Fizeau. Experimet care verifica cu precizie formula lui Fresnel, zisa de antrenare partiala a eterului. Formula lui Fresnel se gaseste usor, fara nicio metafizica relativista, daca se aduna densitate luminii si densitatea mediului si densitatea pamantului. Si nu este vorba de antrenarea eterului, ci este vorba de variatia indicelui de refractie al mediului transaparent, cand este in miscare (in translatie) fata de situatia cand este in repaus. Termenul negativ din formula lui Fresnel este datorat cuplajului luminii cu campul de densitate al planetei. Deoarece este solidar cu planeta.
1:00 I won't let these equations scare me.. I've taken and completed 6th grade math.
High School Physics Explained got the experiment right. But might want to return to school to re-analyze the result in reference to the earths Motion or Non Motion.
Could u make a video on elementary particles spin!
+Anindya Srivastava pitot on the list
Please explain why speed of light is an universal constant?
Debabrata Mondal speed of light is not universal constant. It is slower in a denser medium.
Speed of light in vacuum is dependent only on the electric and magnetic properties of vacuum - one of the really weird results of Maxwell's Equations that got people a little shook.
This experiment proves that speed of light is affected by speed of the source.
I'm sorry to say that you failed to explain how the MM experiment failed... I don't encourage people explaining something they don't really understand because that could make other people more confused, especially in physics.
Can you explain to me why the light going with the eather and against the eather in the returning is slower than the other light in the experiment? Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?
@@brenosantana1458_"Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?"_ - it doesn't. Do the calculations and you'll find out. Or intuitively, think of the extreme case and suppose light has the same speed as the aether wind. Then the light travels very fast with the aether, but will never manage to come back against the aether.
Haha
But the “haha” resounds like an echo - as you laugh into the void of your own thoughts…
The vertical paths would travel a greater distance if the aether existed, not the other way around since the light would have traveled a greater distance on a diagonal. The horizontal distances cancel each other.
Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school. Please read my book, Infinity, Time, Death and Thought.
Another tidbit - why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?
_"The horizontal distances cancel each other."_ - it's not the distance that counts, but the time to travel that distance. And those don't "cancel each other".
_"Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school"_ - you should have stayed in, then you would have learned how to calculate this properly.
_"why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?"_ - because it is a scientific theory (look up the definition of a scientific theory).
What if the Earth is stationary? Would that mean there is an aether?
Check out George Sagnac experiment.
You cannot conclude that the aether doesn't exist based on that experiment. What you can conclude is that the "aether wind" doesn't have the same effect on light as atmospheric wind has on a baseball.
Plus everyone knows that the aether is compose up as Planck size energy bubbles.duh✌️❤️😀👍
Why there hasn't been offered a third assumption. Aether is moving together with the Earth? Because there is some shifting. It is a really small shift. Which shows daly rotation of the Earth itself. And this kind of shifting depends on the latitude location. On the equator it is maximum along on the poles it shows absolutely no shift at all. Would you explain this "strange" behaviour of the light? I could. There is an aether and it goes along the gravitational field of the massive objects like planets, suns, black holes ext. otherwise no one can explain the existence of a black hole because nothing can exist below the event horizon according to non aether theories.
That assumption was made, in addition to stationary aether, partial aether drag and Earth fixed aether were also postulated....... the problem being that no experiments gave results consistent with whatever assumptions (moving, fixed or partially fixed).
GR states Ether exists
the medium is required
natural law
Finally i get the vdo .... which helps me a lot to learn in fine manner
The m.m. experiment disproves an assumption of a static ether. Yet countless youtube videos talk about "dark matter"... There is no way around metaphysics.
Michelson/Morley test is a bunk idea, when it comes to measuring aether wind, it's essentially similar to measuring electromagnetic radiation near the surface of the sun (you're overloaded with the sun's magnetic energy). The Earth is also a giant magnet; trying to measure an "aether wind" would be near impossible. If there is actually aether (an electromagnetic field that fills and makes up the universe), then it would be like the turbulence in water, from a massive spinning sphere; the surface of the sphere would be even layers of pressure, extending outward from the surface (if not from the center mass, in the case of aether).
This is what you're seeing in the later of this video (here: ruclips.net/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/видео.html ); layers of electromagnetic pressure, extending outward from the surface.
You would have to be outside the planet's turbulent field of aether, to actually measure aether wind.
They proved the earth is stationary!
Thanks a lot for that video! You explained it very well and understandable! :)