Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

  1. Mar 18, 2004 #1
    So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk. I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

    If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

    Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 18, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Then I'm not man enough!;)
  4. Mar 18, 2004 #3

    You can e-mail me your solution on <kevin.harkess@btopenworld.com>.
    I too have a solution, see section 7.7 in http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_7/wisp_ch_7.html
    But much more is needed to disprove Einstein's SR than just solving the MM mystery.
    Einstein developed his SR to resolve the fact that Newtonian laws could not solve the Lorentz force law. He solved this and the MM experiment seemed to support his views.
    But the Lorentz force law too can be solved using an ether concept and so the question is - Is a special theory of relativity necessary. I think not.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  5. Mar 18, 2004 #4
  6. Mar 18, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    You should have posted this to Special @ General Relativity forum -;)
    Do you know that "the patent clerk" (Einstein) didn't know of MM experiment when he published his paper(*) in 1905.?
    SR is naturally established when one recognizes that laws of classical Electromagnetics (ie. Maxwell eqs.) must be equally valid in every inertial reference frame in unifom motion.For that matter,ol' Galilei relativity principle was just expanded to EM phenomena in isotropic space.Accordingly,need for ether to explain phenomena became unnecessary,and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.
    Poethicaly one may say that there is a extremly high level of Democracy in Nature at work and this is in a very core of SR.
    One more beautiful side of SR is it units two seemingly distinct things (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian dynamics).Greatest theories in history of science are the theories that unite.
    From Faraday times on.SR expanded to accelerated systems,recognized equality of gravitational and inertial mass,leaded to the theory of Gravity as we know it today.Not bad for a patent office clerk..
    *=Larmour and Lorentz had some (mathematical) results the same as Einstein prior to 1905.,but they were derived on different basis than it was Einstein'S theory.There is more to tell:Einstein was 16 year old high school student (in 1895) when he envisioned fact that speed of light can't be fixed to any specific reference frame.At the time he was barely heard of Maxwell's EM.
  7. Mar 18, 2004 #6
    Ways you can tell someone hasn't "disproved" relativity:

    #1) They make disparaging remarks about Einstein being a "patent clerk"
  8. Mar 18, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Me neither.

    paulanevill, just out of morbid curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote. Pardon me for my skepticism though, as I use my GPS capable cell phone...
  9. Mar 18, 2004 #8

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Funny, the question Einstein was asking was, "Is an aether necessary? I think not."

    Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

    I find it amazing that critics of SR (I'm not singling you out, wisp) always focus on the MM experiment, as if a "correct" reinterpretation of that would cause the whole house to come down. The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

    Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?
  10. Mar 18, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Oh boy.

    One more engineer thinking he has the answer to the "nonsense" of SR. One more for the count.
  11. Mar 18, 2004 #10
    I don't have much to say other than:


  12. Mar 18, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Einstein held a Phd in physics, he merely worked as a patent clerk as he was having difficultly getting a university or research position, (because he had a few personality conflicts with the people who controlled these openings)

    Which means absolutely nothing when it comes to Relativity. If I want medical advice, I go to an MD, not to an auto mechanic, no matter how many years experience he's had, or how many difficult auto problems he's repaired.

    The real question is whether I have the time to waste in order to pour over the work of yet another engineer who's deluded himself into thinking that he's been able to find the flaw in Relativity that has somehow eluded generations of Physicists, any one of which would have sold his soul to make a name for himself by finding such a flaw. Especially considering the fact that I'll most likely just find that said engineer has completely misinterpreted Relativity in the first place.
  13. Mar 18, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did your efforts produce testable predictions? Do any of those predictions differ, to any significant extent, from the predictions for SR and GR? If so, please present, succinctly:
    a) your prediction
    b) the corresponding SR/GR prediction
    c) a list of experiments, with their results, conducted to date, in the domain of your prediction.

    For your reference, here is a list of experimental tests of SR, and http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Mar 19, 2004 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Easy on the engineers, guys: most of us know that all the tools and technology and math we use were developed by scientists. Most of us know that science and engineering are complimentary fields.

    Yeah, this particular crackpot happens to be an engineer, but there are just as many who are failed scientists thinking they were snubbed due to the 'dogma' or some conspiracy of modern science.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2004
  15. Mar 19, 2004 #14
    Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise. But then I don't wish to harp on about this as I know how upsetting it is for you people. You know what they say though - An engineer will take something complicated and make it look simple, whereas a scientist will take something simple and make it look complicated.
    What about the ability of the 45 degree mirror to reduce the horizontal path length due to a movement in the vertical path, and vice versa. What about the true speed of the earth and solar system due to a sideways velocity through space as a result of being part of a circulating galaxy.

    Cogitate for a while.

  16. Mar 19, 2004 #15
    How can this be pointless? If all the effects predicted by relativity can be explained clearly with regards to an absolute frame, surely that is progress.

    I'm not bothered whether ether or SR theories are correct. But the ether still has a lot of credibility and shouldn't be dismissed just because SR is a good theory.

    I'm open-minded enough to look at both theories with equal weight, but I'm more convinced that the ether route is the way to go.
  17. Mar 19, 2004 #16
    So what're the physical characteristics of this mysterious ether?

    Last I heard it had some pretty remarkable things that it had to have going for it, and it was more of a stretch for me to imagine that such a substance could exist than space could bend a little bit.

    Then again, I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been answered. If so, I apologize.

  18. Mar 19, 2004 #17
    I would like to see Paula address Nereid's post.
  19. Mar 19, 2004 #18
  20. Mar 19, 2004 #19
    Re: Re: Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

    Thank you for the history lesson, but you ought to get your facts straighter. The whole point why SR is no good is that it relies upon a frame of reference. Maxwell equations (which I understand perfectly, having worked as an RF engineer) merely shows the osillatory nature of EM. What people don't realise thought is (on sine waves) is that they may be drawn with height on the page, but they only represent strength, ie zero space taken up.

    Now, perhaps you have something useful to contribute, rather than poorly reciting a mixture of old lectures. With Absolute Motion, one needs no reference, the equations can be viewed from anywhere or any angle. You really need to put yourself out more. Chew on this for a while. Perhaps then you may decide to read my complete solution by emailing me your address: paulanevill@fsmail.net

    The 45 degree mirror of the MMX, when moving in the vertical direction (or component of), reduces the horizontal path length of the light beam (laser parallel of not). And vice versa.
    The solar system (being part of a galaxy) circulates in space, thus the spped of the MMX (and earth) is not the obital speed of 30,000 m/s, but varies sinusionally during the year. On the day of the 1887 experiment, the true speed of the MMX was +/- 5500 m/s. The +/- is not particularly relevant as the MMX apparatus is symmatrical about the 180 degree rotation. Plug this lot in and you get the correct mathematical result

  21. Mar 19, 2004 #20
    Nereid's post is good. I would like to see your response to Nereid's post.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook