Episode 41: The Michelson morley Experiment - The Mechanical Universe

[@hjalmarschacht2559]

WOW! This must be one of the BEST descriptions of the Michelson-Morley experiment and one of the MOST HONEST exposition of the actual history of what happened.

[@ytad87]

@@Mayank-mf7xr pls explain and link for the same also where is the next part of this lecture

[@PointToTheKing]

@@Mayank-mf7xr , what are you referring to? I don’t see what prompted you to say this?

[@topspintoo4703]

What did you expect from caltech?

[@bryangough6424]

The visualization at 10:24 helped explain something that I couldn't find an answer to anywhere else on the internet, an absolutely amazing video as a whole as well!

[@MrHandsomeStudios]

I agree this is poggers

[@tomc8617]

Yes, and of course the faster the system moves from left to right, the longer it takes the light beam to reach the mirror on the right and therefore the larger the time discrepancy between the two mirrors. IF the system were able to travel at the speed of light (which it could not) the beam would never reach the mirror on the right. ie, time would come to a complete stop from that perspective. Since it requires an input of energy to accelerate an object, in this case, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object to light speed, and of course there isn't an infinite supply of energy in the (entire) universe, as far as we currently know or assume anyway.

[@zuthmani9955]

Thx for the reference!

[@wirebrushproductions1001]

However, keep in mind that the rotation shown was performed by letting the earth rotate for 6 hours between measurements.

[@jobzzzz]

There has to be some kind of ether. Otherwise the accelerating expansion of space directly contradicts gravity

[@wirebrushproductions1001]

In a 1921 lecture, Einstein acknowledged that he was, in fact, aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he developed SR.

[@tobysource]

Not only that, but It's literally on Page 1 of On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, written in 1905: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "

[@meenakshiiyer1644]

thanks man for uploading such a great vid.

[@0RogueZero]

Nice series. Now to grab popcorn and dive into comments by crackpots without any education explaining how it 'acchktually' is.

[@Aurora666_yt]

For real 🤣

[@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns]

Yep, found several village idiots in the comments section. Never fails.

[@yannisvaroufakis9395]

Michelson-Morley did NOT prove that there was no Ether. The null result was explained by Fitzgerald and Lorentz as being due to the contraction of one of the measuring rods. Einstein stated that this correctly explained the failure to detect an Ether. The current quantum field theory is that all of space is filled with fluid-like substances called fields, and that all of what are termed particles are simply waves, or disturbances, of these fields. This seems to take us full circle back to the Ether theory.

[@thecaliforniamaniac]

Ken Wheeler much?! ;)

[@yannisvaroufakis9395]

Ken Wheeler is insane.

[@thecaliforniamaniac]

Yannis Varoufakis well you both believe in the ether so how is what he says insane?

[@okiewind8403]

It actually proved that we are not a spinning ball flying through an endless vacuum of space

[@jerisin7202]

Our knowledge of reality would be profoundly different today if M-M pointed their instrument in a direction vertical with respect to the surface of the Earth. See Robert Distinti for details.

[@kornami8678]

Since Albert Michelson came from Virginia City, Nevada, he was featured in an episode of the TV show Bonanza as a young man with a penchant for making a nuisance of himself with his physics experiments. The Cartwrights took him under their wing to help him succeed in school and get recognized for being a gifted student.

[@kevinlutz2679]

Yes. I saw that episode too!

[@nickmerix2900]

I seem to have read somewhere that the results of the experiment were not null but just not what was expected if the earth was moving at 33 m per sec around the sun. If that is the case then we can read the results as no eather detected or no motion of the earth detected. Why is this not pointed out?

[@JivanPal]

The conclusion of the experiment is that the aether does not exist, because if it did exist, one would easily be able to see the difference in interference pattern when the apparatus is aligned with the direction of motion through the aether vs. when it is not. The speed of the Earth relative to the supposed aether is irrelevant, unless that speed is zero, in which case you will also get the same observations that are actually made. However, this doesn't matter, because we know the Earth is moving around the sun and the Earth is orbiting on its axis, so the apparatus's/observer's speed through the aether will change with time. The only possible exception to this is if the Earth happens to move in complete synchronisation with the aether, that is to say that the Earth also rotates at the exact same rate as the aether; or rather, the Earth and aether are not rotating, but everything else in the universe is or may be rotating. However, this possibility is ruled out if you do the experiment someplace where the rotation of the apparatus about the Earth's axis is not the same as the Earth's rate of rotation about its axis, such as in a moving vehicle. We have in fact done this: the experiment has been performed on the ISS.

[@nickmerix2900]

@@JivanPal you have to look at the experiment With the knowledge they had at the time . The results could be interpreted as no eather Detected or the earth does not move . You say we know the earth moves. But how do we know this to be a fact? Better yet how did they know that then as to discount the possibility of a stationary earth? What experiment has been done to prove the earth actually does move? It sounds trivial but in science it needs to be proven . To my knowledge no experiment ever showed the earth in motion.

[@JivanPal]

@@nickmerix2900 , as I described, they could have put the experimental apparatus in a moving vehicle, but due to the sensitivity of the equipment and the nature of the experiment, they would need a long flat stretch of road and a very smooth-driving vehicle to do this. To my knowledge, such an experiment was never done in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and so you are quite right that the possibility of the earth having zero speed and rotation relative to the aether was still a very real possibility. However, the likelihood of this being the case was seen as prohibitively small, to the point of being negligible. Since then, we have definitively ruled out the possibility by conducting the experiment in the ISS, but even in Einstein's time, the validity of special relativity had been demonstrated in numerous other ways, giving direct credence to the speed of light being invariant, and outright disproving the notion of the aether, because if the aether did actually exist, then the SR-reinforcing observations would not have been possible.

[@rolandbrooks386]

The earth is certainly not moving

[@Heaven351]

​@@JivanPal yes , you are mostly right about your comment . Earth moves with aether , there is no relative motion between them , no aether drift because aether is rotating with Earth with exact same rate , hence no interference pattern is detected . Nikola Tesla and Lord Kelvin said in their papers about aether that , aether is most possibly a rotating fluid with properties of ideal fluid with almost zero viscosity which means no drag between earth's motion relative to aether .

[@Mayank-mf7xr]

physicist's asmr

[@grinishkin]

16:13 Still, I can't get -- what was so special about the ether as the Earth moved through it? Which ether's effect on light was expected during the experiment? I once read that it should drag as the Earth moves, but there were no any mention about it during the episode. Here, I only see optical and geometrical calculations as the Earth orbits the Sun and light beams travel back and forth.

[@wydopnthrtl]

Neither the "earth" (means soil) nor the water moves. That is obvious.

[@WhotheHellknowsAnyway]

Where did they get that video of planet earth, looks like a beachball needing more air.

[@temetnosce4090]

How can we know that we are working in the right premise and just jump into the conclusion. How can a wave detect the water where the wave is waving?

[@banjobear3867]

How do we know that our results we get today aren't a result of another type of uniform interference?

[@Ihaveanamenowtaken]

This experiment has been repeated and the results are the same, thus the premise is wrong.

[@kornami8678]

At 3:03 it's Gildar Radner's Roseanne Roseannadanna.

[@kevinlutz2679]

Yep. I saw her too!

[@paulg444]

Beautiful woman !!!

[@gamazero-fatordeaberracao3272]

Please answer! 1) If in the research activity, which M&M engaged in those years, light has been propagating in the air of our troposphere, why do physicists perform all analyzes with the value of c = 299792458 (which is the speed of light in a vacuum or space) and not the value of v = 299702547 m/s (which is the speed of light at the place of the experiment) ??? 2) Was it vacuum interferometry or not ??? 3) Have you forgotten that the earth has atmosphere ??? 4) Astronomical aberration or light aberration is a phenomenon associated with the propagation of light in space. Right? So I ask: is this phenomenon inserted or not in the mechanics (equations) currently in use? 5) Why, even today, in the presentations on this subject, we still talk about the orbital velocity of the earth ~ 30 km / s, if there is already a history (published of course!) About the total velocity of the centers of mass of the Earth. solar system (368 km/s +/- 2 km/s) and the local group of galaxies (727 km / s), as measured in 1996 at: arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9609034.pdf THE CMB DIPOLE - THE MOST RECENT MEASUREMENT AND A SOME HISTORY - Charles H. Lineweaver, 1996. 6) Why not discuss the "Pole Light Scheme" or "Ceiling Light Scheme", which schemes were improperly named "Einstein Train Scheme"? Well, anyone with very little resources and knowledge can realize that the light spreading in our troposphere rigorously exhibits that behavior! That is, its direction of propagation is being dragged through the Earth's atmosphere, and therefore nothing, absolutely nothing that is done will result in measuring our velocity in space if light is propagating in the air. That is, the light is referenced in the compressing air mass (10 mca = ~ 1 atm); rather, in the characteristics of magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity. Moreover, the light goes from one mirror to the other and returns, in both arms of that interferometer, always at the same speed, and therefore there is no difference in optical paths. Thus, clearly, the expected result for that experiment is NULL.

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

I had a point by point answer, including the fact that Lorentz and were well aware of the existence of the atmosphere (and realized it was more or less irrelevant; the index of refraction is almost the same as a vacuum), but I decided instead to just google experiments performed in vacuums, and found, to my pleasure, several experiments confirming Lorentz invariance preformed in vacuums (or rather, these experiments push the possible window for violations of Lorentz invariance further and further). Work by Meuller, Brillet, Hill, and others and many others have contributed to this. Just to get you started, here's one: link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-38950-7_2 There are numerous experiments regarding Lorentz invariance and vacuums, which more or less confirm it. Given that the Lorentz transformation is the very backbone of special relativity, I'd say this ought to answer your concern. But even without that, you have the huge problem that if we live in a Galilean universe, then a charge moving near a wire is an entirely different phenomenon than a wire moving near a charge, because Maxwell's equations cannot make the two the same without the Lorentz transformation law (and intuitively, they are OBVIOUSLY the same thing, just described from different reference frames).

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

Let me also add another experiment which confirmed Lorentz Invariance in a vacuum. Or rather, it pushed the possibility of Lorentz violation to the order of 10^-15. arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0412385 Of course, physicists expect to find a Lorentz violation eventually due to quantum mechanics, but rest assured this will NOT be the salvation of the Galilean transformation, as at minimum Lorentz Invariance will be correct to the order of 10^-15, which is absurdly accurate, and which means Galilean invariance is extremely wrong except for low speeds.

[@zReNAgAdE504]

@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 the lorentz transform is not science

[@rajeev_kumar]

@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 Lorentz transformation is bullshit..

[@zReNAgAdE504]

@@dianau4944 da lorentz transform coupled wit da theory of relativity does not PROVE anythang woman... an unprovable mathemagical equation is not reality or scientific

[@paulg444]

i find it impossible that Einstein was not aware of the Michaelson Morely experiment. That is just not possible. It may not have been in any way central to his thinking but Im sure he was aware of it.

[@jonelsorel]

He was well aware of it and of Tesla's work. He just chose to ignore it.

[@JivanPal]

You say you "find it impossible", then claim "it is not possible". Which is it? Your feeling/discovery, or your knowledge/fact?

[@SteveMe21685]

@@jonelsorel Yea I was gonna say thats why Tesla argued against his theory. Also Aristotle didn't come up with the theory. It was around wayyy before him. Hermes, Vedas, Egyptians all new about this

[@rolandbrooks386]

Einstein said there was no ether, but retracted that statement later on

[@SharkDawg32]

Just because you find it impossible doesn't mean it is

[@davidnewcombe9654]

Surely the learned folks at Caltech know that Prof. Morley deserves a capitalized surname.

[@jameswilson8270]

Did Michelson and Morley account for the time it takes for light to reflect? Or is that process truly instantaneous?

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

Michelson-Morley is irrelevant now. It’s just a historical footnote. Other experiments far better, including performed in a vacuum, have confirmed special relativity to a very high degree. The following experiment confirms Lorentz invariance (the backbone of special relativity) in a vacuum to a degree of 10^-15. arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0412385 It is believed that Lorentz violation will eventually be found, but that is because of quantum mechanics, and everyone already knows relativity and quantum mechanics don’t get along. It won’t, however, rescue Galilean relativity, which is as dead as dead can be.

[@Jacob-yg7lz]

It could be tested to be equal between the two mirrors.

[@Ihaveanamenowtaken]

That’s the whole deal of the interferometer.

[@ytad87]

Lol that's the same with Ligo then

[@Heaven351]

Sagnac Effect proves relativity of Einstein is wrong . If you rotate the interferometer then there is slight change in the pattern of fringes .

[@haraldurkarlsson1147]

An old classic.

[@mykiBoy]

best f lecture ever! a story, a logical stepwise thought process and a twist at the end

[@markbeck3748]

The electric field, which exists throughout the universe, is the ether, which acts as a medium for the transmission of all electromagnetic waves.

[@sivakumar-oh2if]

How dark and bright light is form after the light hit a screen bcz light it self is a bright one but how can u get black spot at center of screen even though light hits on same point on screen

[@dreddnott]

Destructive interference

[@chrinovicbugere5112]

if the light waves were not in phase and have path difference of lambda/2, they cancel each other out and form a destructive interference(dark spots)

[@afewpickles6074]

can someone explain the basics of the Lorentz transformations please? I just need the very basics

[@jacobm5167]

Any special relativity textbook will do a much better job than anyone in the comment section of a KZbin video.

[@Pek-hb1tj]

Bit late and probably not great but it’s just the specific way of calculating how the speed of time passing, distances, velocities etc will be measured in different inertial frames (frame of reference where the observer/measurement maker is stationary, your frame of reference), and is accurate at high velocities… through the math of special relativity

[@aquamanGR]

This video is a nice little gem. And Goodstein's delivery is very nice. In the end, the two things he says, i.e., restoring the principle of relativity and believing that c is constant for all observers, are so simple and yet so amazing. In fact, I am wondering if it really just boils down to only 1 thing, i.e., principle of relativity, because unless c was a constant, you would be violating relativity by figuring out your speed/state of motion, via measurement of the speed of light.

[@xinzhouping]

c is a constant though.

[@gerardopc1]

Maybe string theory is the aether of our time

[@shalomes2012]

In order to challenge this null result - what about performing the experiment in orbit around earth?

[@wydopnthrtl]

You can't. There is a raquia in the way

[@Aurora666_yt]

​@@wydopnthrtl no such thing exists.

[@philoso377]

Page 8:04 “the Aether is a mobile fluid w/o viscosity alt all ,,,” It is important to realize that Aether has no mechanical viscosity, but electrical viscosity known as impedance is = (u0/e0)^0.5. That “Aether is mobile” is a hint that it travels with matter it attached to and not blown through matter like a ghost wind. Unfortunately MMX apparatus was engineered assuming that Aether is some sort of wind that can blown through atoms without any attachment or drag.

[@grinishkin]

16:13 Still, I can't get -- what was so special about the ether as the Earth moved through it? Which ether's effect on light was expected during the experiment? I once read that it should drag as the Earth moves, but there were no any mention about it during the episode. Here, I only see optical and geometrical calculations as the Earth orbits the Sun and light beams travel back and forth.

[@philoso377]

⁠the MMX interferometer was designed assuming that 1) light ride on a medium of Aether and 2) the medium can blows through the interferometer. 3) if Aether wind exists, interference and fringe activities is observable. Test observation record with no fringe activities. Einstein was the one rush to conclusion declare absence of Aether without any investigation into why.

[@philoso377]

Following page 11:00 The light medium attached and move with the apparatus and earth at a common velocity ….

[@MrFinius]

Perhaps the aether does exist...only the Capernican assumption that the earth moves is false.

[@eu29lex16]

No, aether has no drag. Super fluid helium is also frictionless. Super fluid helium exists and there are youtube videos about it.

[@Heaven351]

Exactly , there no drag because Aether exhibits properties of Superfluidity . It's possibly can be s very very dilute ( low density ) gas what Nikola Tesla said and its elasticity is very very large hence speed of sound is nothing but sound wave ( pressure wave ) through superfluid aether which is similar to a phonon wave .

[@eu29lex16]

@@Heaven351 it is low density, it's also why the vacuum is filled with energy fields, why mass becomes heavier with speed(it's gathering particles from this field ). It's also why the unruh effect exits in space, it'd an effect where space is behaving as if it's running through a hot fluid at high speeds. Also, it's the reason zero point energy exists and why particles always have energy even if totally isolated, it's interacting with the particles of this field, giving them energy. Also, it's why the "quantum field/ether" gives energy particles/photons for magnets to ah e their magnetic power. It's obvious magnetism is not just the magnet since the electric shell particles(electrons) don't leave material 1 cm, but magnets have a pretty big range. It's a filed formed from the emrgy particles of this field we see in all space. Some call it aether but cuz many book geeks are programmed to react negatively to this word I just call it "nature's field". It's the reason mass exists, magnetism, even gravity is jsit the magnetism/mass of matter attracting particles from this field, creating a cascade effect where we are pushed towards the earth from space. It's also the reason anything has activity or energy. And it's also why the formula for gravity is so similar to magnetism, it's a variation of the power all sleticles have , it is actually the magnetic power of any particle interacting with this field.

[@grinishkin]

@@Heaven351 16:13 Still, I can't get -- what was so special about the ether as the Earth moved through it? Which ether's effect on light was expected during the experiment? I once read that it should drag as the Earth moves, but there were no any mention about it during the episode. Here, I only see optical and geometrical calculations as the Earth orbits the Sun and light beams travel back and forth.

[@Heaven351]

@@grinishkin what exactly do you want to understand ?

[@grinishkin]

@@Heaven351 if the Arther existed, how it should have affected the speed of light during the experiment?

[@blackopal3138]

You're standing in a 8'x8'x8' room made of 100% reflective mirrors, from which light cannot escape. There is a 100 watt light bulb on the ceiling, hanging about a foot below it. The light has a half sphere metal shade with the base hanging square with the floor. You turn on the light.... What we all observe: - light reaches every corner of the room and fills all space in between them. - it is brighter in some areas and darker in others, but that distribution does not change.(to the observable eye) unless the light source changes, say, a flicker; but even then, the dist. stays relative, and all areas fluctuate equally. - nor does the intensity of light increase with time of the light being on - shadows are always oriented to the same direction, to the light source - we know the walls don't glow briefly when the light source is removed, neither do we observe light emanating from the room if we are on the outside of it. - when the light is turned off, the room goes dark again This raises many questions, but the 2 most obvious to me are: 1. Where does the light go? 2. When the light is on, why doesn't the room get brighter with the passage of time? The experiment also means that light reflects off all objects and materials equally well. ... So why did we use 100% reflective mirrors to run the experiment?? Remember, light is supposedly traveled billions of light years across space without dissipating or fracturing, or deflecting, or losing intensity or speed. And energy cannot be destroyed. peace

[@dreddnott]

Mirrors are not 100% reflective and photons are absorbed.

[@blackopal3138]

@@dreddnott Ok, I'm down with the reflectivity. What's the science on the absorption? We then have glass filled/holding photons? Or, I suppose, if it can absorb, it can release.... But no light is seen coming out of the box. No matter the length of time the light is on, we will never see it coming out, or the glass itself glowing. Even if we add to the experiment and increase the lumens. Actually we could change it to a lead box lined with mirrors, or ditch the mirrors... point is, when you hit the off switch the light is gone. I suppose by process of elimination, absorption is the only remaining choice. Why shouldn't the walls glow? If some are being absorbed, and since most of it reflects, and they are still reflecting off of the iron particles as they are absorbed, we should see a glow in the first planes of the wall material. Why would it all be absorbed instantly when turning off the bulb, if it is not happening instantly while the bulb is on? ... and don't even get me started on colors, lol. How much photons can be absorbed by different materials, what becomes of them. They are broken down? What is a photon? It's not hydrogen, or silicone, or gold, what is it??? Why isn't it on the periodic table? Lol, Just exploring. peace

[@dreddnott]

@@blackopal3138 Photons are massless particles emitted spontaneously when matter reaches a certain energy level. See: black body radiation and what exactly 'quanta' are for more info

[@ahbyahdmohammed7694]

@@dreddnott loved your explanation. Thanks

[@xinzhouping]

@∀i7A they are massless. photons only have dynamic mass.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

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).

[@philoso377]

Page 18:30 the MMX successfully that Aether attached and dragged along with the apparatus at equal speed in all directions.

[@idoittinkeringprojects9893]

The wrong question was asked. Whats to be determined is whether the beams of light, after being seperated, and that each have a different path distance , will converge at the same time or not. If same convergent time occurs, then, it can be concluded theres presence of Aether. As light will be propagated as waves, the doppler effect will occur to account for the same time of convergence inspite of difference in light path distance due to the rotation of Earth. If theres a difference in convergent time, then light has propagated through empitness , as the longer light path will take longer time. Then light is moving like a particle or packet of energy. The doppler phenomenon rules that light speed remains same regardless of the motion of the light source towards the recieving position. What is distorted is frequency and wave lengths. The Mechelson Morley experiment did determine theres aether.

[@U3X6785]

If there is no aether then what is dark matter.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

A contrivance to explain away the fact that Einstein's general relativity is completely fallacious and does not model reality.

[@redbean9410]

@@wesbaumguardner8829 its called a theory for a reason dude.

[@ytad87]

@@dianau4944 my point too mate

[@siddharthnandi3995]

A totally different thing.

[@siddharthnandi3995]

@@mclum77?

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

calgary.rasc.ca/algol_minima.htm When the earth is traveling away from Algol the eclipses come further apart in time. When the earth is traveling towards Algol the eclipses come closer together in time. So what is causing the eclipses to come further apart in time and closer together in time? 1. The speed of light is constant and the eclipses are sometimes spaced farther apart or closer together. 2. The eclipses are spaced an equal distance from each other and the light is slowing down and speeding up relative to the earth as it moves past the earth.

[@JoeDeglman]

The other thing we know about light is that it varies based upon the direction of travel of the Earth with respect to 3 different reference frames. With the new radio telescopes we can detect the speed of the Earth through the solar system, through the galaxy, and through the Universe, based upon anisotropy of light. The difference between using the radio telescopes to detect this speed and using the MMX to detect it is that there are two opposing waves in the arms of the interferometer, requiring the use of the Superposition of Waves Principle equation, or averaging, as in Steven B. Bryant's work.. His video "Relativity Fails to Explain a Key Experiment." So MMX is not detecting the Earth's rotation through the ether medium surrounding the Earth, but is detecting the ether medium dragged by the Sun, when the Earth orbits around the Sun. Check out Reg Cahill kzbin.info/www/bejne/imGam2SGi8pkbNU NASA has known the speed of the Earth in these different reference frames for decades. This is in direct violation of the Postulates of Einstein's version of relativity.

[@mclum77]

Ty for your reply. YT deleted your response on my end or something. I cannot read it.

[@brainpain5260]

3:08 It's Rosanne Rosanna Danna from Saturday Night Live. I love the brainy babes.

[@NG-we8uu]

The interferometer didn’t fail to detect the æther, rather it failed to detect the motion of the earth relative to said æther.

[@Heaven351]

Exactly the so called Null experiment actually suggests that aether moves or drag along with motion of Earth , not that Earth is stationary . Aether moves with matter . It flows like a fluid and that's why nowadays its called superfluid aether .

[@NG-we8uu]

@@Heaven351the sagnac experiment debunks your conclusion

[@Heaven351]

@@NG-we8uu Sagnac experiment rather proves my point . Dumb

[@NG-we8uu]

@@Heaven351 care to explain your opinion rather than insulting people?

[@Heaven351]

@@NG-we8uu sagnac experiment detect ether wind ( drag effect ) because it's a rotating set up not a fixed interferometer

[@russchadwell]

Now repeat the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, this time accelerate the contraption somehow. Interference now?

[@nikhilsomvanshi9960]

Probably still, yes

[@dreamdiction]

This experiment proves that light travels at exactly THE SAME speed in all directions regardless of the fact the earth is rotating at 1500 mph, the earth is orbiting the sun at 45,000 mph, and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000 mph. So this Michelson Morley experiment does not disprove the aether, this experiment disproves Special Relativity.

[@eu29lex16]

Lol, exactly

[@Carbon_Crow]

9:53 - 11:39 15:15 - 16:32

[@connormarsh2535]

What if light travels like current? Its already there, like the flow of electrons? What if it is the Aether? We can only see it in motion. Light isn't moving from a to be. Ether is moving and emitting light. Ether has no mass and can move freely through all matter.

[@wydopnthrtl]

That would 100% support day one of creation as seen in the Bible.

[@auraveenley.8743]

The aether flows over the flat motionless firmamentally contained earth. Drop the heliocentric moving globe model, pick up the aether.

[@nanahakpe7735]

The only hope for humanity

[@okiewind8403]

You got that right. The experiment was a success in proving we don’t live on a spinning ball flying through space at millions of mph 🙄

[@timothyjohnson1511]

Ether flows into mass. See Robert Distinti for details.

[@rchas1023]

And today we have virtual particles!

[@bryanfuentes1452]

why did they have to invent the idea of "either" as a medium for light to propagate? Was it not already established and known at that time that light is an electromagnetic wave and that electric and magnetic fields are the medium of light wave as it propagates?

[@eu29lex16]

Space has no magnetic fields.

[@Heaven351]

There is no such thing as a " Field " , a Field has no physical properties and you can not know what it is in true form unless you detect some vibrations in it . A field is just a mathematical construct . Rather space has physical properties and hence space or vacuum space is a medium not a Field .

[@Sunspot1225.]

Ether is space that takes anything time to move thru. Non ether is nothing, not even time. Therefore, it does not exist. How to prove that i do not know. I am remembering the kids story Neverending Story and the Steven King story Lasalear(sp) where the monsters left nothing in their path. Maybe deep in a black hole would be the answer where even all matter and time "disappears".

[@Rakeshkumar30]

Awesome 👍

[@ThanikaSalamT-fy1ms]

All the light energized matter is exist by the space energy. ..need to be clarify without michelson -morley experiment -----

[@ErickMcNerney]

17:11 - maybe it's just that simple - the earth is not moving. Huh.

[@philoso377]

Page 7:08 “the Aether must be very stiff and incompressible ,,,” Is that another mechanical biased concept for ignorance?

[@romado59]

The "null" believe is not true. The results was one third of what was expected.

[@lookn4heal]

He proved the earth is not in motion.

[@nisko897]

thanks

[@philoso377]

Page 17:00 The mathematics and observation in MMX result is correct and the Aether concept is wrong. Aether attached with the apparatus and drag along with it and the earth at equal velocity.

[@JacobThompson-my1ts]

Hello Mr dunalps class

[@atheistaetherist2747]

The same old Einsteinology krapp, re the MMX result being null. It was null in the broad sense re the original expectation of there being a 30 kmps aetherwind due to Earth orbiting throo a supposedly fixed aether (Michelson finding only say 5 kmps)(Munera says 6 kmps after correcting for Michelson's averaging errors)(Cahill says over 300 kmps if properly calibrated to include Lorentz contraction). But i enjoyed listening to Michelson's voice, the only good bit of the video. He believed in aether to the end. Demjanov uzing a twin media (air & carbon disulphide) found a horizontal component of aetherwind at Obninsk with a min of 140 kmps & a max of 480 kmps during a sidereal day (22 June 1970). Demjanov's MMX was approx 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as Michelson's 1887 air-MMX.

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

Meanwhile, experiments such as this one, from 2004, arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0412385 push the range from which Lorentz Invariance can be violated to smaller and smaller windows, which all but ends any hope of Galilean relativity surviving. Of course, Lorentz invariance will mostly likely fall to quantum mechanics at some point, but it will be accurate over so large a window that the only place for Galilean invariance will be the one already allowed by special relativity: slow speeds only. Heck, just a decade an a half after your posted experiment, I believe it was Brillet and Hall we had an experiment 4000 times more accurate than Michelson-Morley which confirmed the null result. But, I am less concerned about experiments that occurred in the previous millennium than the more sophisticated ones of the last twenty years, which confirm that Lorentz invariance is the rule in this universe except perhaps on the quantum level. And of course, in order to believe in Galilean invariance, you have to believe that a moving wire next to a charge is a fundamentally different phenomenon then a moving charge next to a wire, which is pure idiocy (the Galilean transformation cannot successfully transform between the two scenarios while maintaining the symmetry inherent in the phenomenon, while the Lorentz transformation can).

[@atheistaetherist2747]

​@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 Prof Reg Cahill has shown that MMXs need a dielectric. MMXs get a signal by virtue of Fresnel Drag of light by the dielectric. Vacuum has no dielectric. Vacuum gives at best a 3rd order signal, compared to the standard 2nd order signal, or compared to the 1st order signal of the Demjanov twin media MMX done in 1968-72. But in any case a laser is a kind of MMX in its own right, ie an MMX within an MMX. There is no good theory re the predicted calibration of a laser MMX. Altho Demjanov used a laser. But his use is different to the faux-pseudo-quasi-MMX in your link.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

To remind Einstein's opinion on the effect of MM experiment: "for a coordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of MM is not shortened, but is "is" shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest to the sun,i.e., it means so-called "time dilation" and "length contraction" is a physical fiction: it also contradicts the original 1905's silly conclusion about the "particular consequence" of a "travelling clock" which is at...rest in his own coordinate system (see: A.E.Relativity. Special@gEenral, 1961/1916,p.54). See A.E. use of the "is" as if different of the language use of the verb "is"(to be). It proves his ....also confusion. For today there is evidence EArth@our Galaxy is moving with 600 km/second according to Microve BAcground Radiation data! Where is the data of original experiments and others: this here at 10:34 prompts the two bright fringes as the effect of interference and not just one - don't you see it? What's the problem then?

[@wydopnthrtl]

The ground beneath you isn't exhibiting rigid body rotation with translation.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@wydopnthrtl ? You're an ...idiot probably with some School diploma

[@Oleg-Yaroshenko]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6HCm5eZdp2Zmdk Hey, caltech good steins or stones, tell us what law of physics forces the upper shiny dot to go not vertically, as school books tell and as Michelson knew in 1881, but forgot in 1887?

[@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir]

I have predıcted with my theory and my formula 6.3 tımes greater speed of light which is measured as if apparently inside of M87 black hole. I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN, we need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it

[@smachohalla]

10:24 - You cant feel the motion of the earth spin coz its too big, but then a small beam of light with its fastest speed known to mankind moving perpendicular to earths motion travels lesser due to that? What a load of horse shit?

[@infinitylove2713]

Grt scientist ever....unfortunately underrated...

[@suryanshsinghshekhawat8576]

Finally 0 interpretation errors

[@bagnon]

Let's not confuse lack of aether drift with lack of aether.

[@grinishkin]

16:13 Still, I can't get -- what was so special about the ether as the Earth moved through it? Which ether's effect on light was expected during the experiment? I once read that it should drag as the Earth moves, but there were no any mention about it during the episode. Here, I only see optical and geometrical calculations as the Earth orbits the Sun and light beams travel back and forth.

[@Dismythed]

This did not disprove aether. It disproved the current idea at the time that the aether is somehow affected by particulate matter. Einstein's blunder was based on the fact that he abandoned the aether altogether because of pressure from his professor and peers. But to correct the problem, he had to reintroduce a medium he dubbed "the new ether". Quantum field Theory is the QM version of the aether, but has significant deficits because many of its findings indicate a fluid substance unaffected by gravity. (If it facilitates a force, then it can't be affected by that force, which is where its absolute viscocity comes in. It acts like metal moves electrons just as Maxwell diagrammed in his definition of the aether in a volume of the British Encyclopedia.)

[@haddow777]

The experiment was flawed from its conception and never could possibly give any data of value. I can prove it easily too. The way they were thinking about their math was all wrong. They viewed this Aether nonsense was some fluid the light traveled through, and calculated like it was putting drag in the light. That's why they calculated the perpendicular path to be along a triangular path. I get it, you think of a swimmer swimming across a river with the current coming from the side. The swimmer is going to be moved sideways each part of the trip. Also, they viewed the light moving with or against the current as being slowed or being sped up, when this isn't how it would have actually worked. Think about sound emanating from a moving train. The sound wave doesn't get dragged along with the train, it just moves out from the spot the train was when it made the sound. Where the train went after making the sound no longer matters to the sound wave. It has its starting point and for as long as it exists and isn't impeded by something or reflected, it will constantly be going out from that point in space. Light, I believe is like this, and his experiment could never possibly detect it. The problem is, the light is moving from a set point at a constant speed. Nothing it affecting it speed in the experiment at all. The experiment is moving relative to the photon's emission point. Let's say, the experiment is moving to the away from the emission source. So, in their eyes, the Aether would be moving towards the emission source. As the photons head out, the splitter mirror is moving away from them. They hit it and part of them keep going forward and the others are reflected perpendicular to the equipment movement. Now, the reflection happens so quickly relative to the motion of the splitter mirror, the perpendicular traveling photons got straight up. To them, they've been reflected on a 90 degree angle, so they head straight towards the mirror, which is slowly moving to the right, perpendicular to their motion, so it has no affect on their journey. The light going forward is losing ground as the moving mirror it's chasing is creating more distance between them. Still, it hits it and returns to the splitter. Now, the splitter is moving towards it, shortening the distance between them by the same amount the light lost chasing the mirror behind it. (Effectively, it's round trip is Xnew=((x+d)+(x-d))/2 or Xnew=x). That trip did nothing at all and would reflect a motion no matter how different the time one direction took over the other. The perpendicular photon is reflected straight back and while it journeys to the detector, it is also shifting sideways, but is is having zero effect on the distance the photon has to travel to meet it. Since the straight and back light erased any effects of motion on itself by the time it reached the splitter mirror, it is perfectly in sync with the perpendicular light and they both travel together in sync now and for always to the detector. Note, light travels at about a foot a nanosecond, roughly. We all know the perpendicular light shifted sideways from where the two beams split, so the beams aren't in total alignment. Still I calculater it out, and that means it would shift sideways by about 0.000183mm per foot the perpendicular light would have traveled. Still, since the mirrors were moving, all that would happen would be it would shift sideways a super minuscule amount. It would have zero effect on its travel time at all, because the mirrors are moving sideways from its perspective. At best, if you made the lights path many thousands of feet, you could manage to possibly me so off the mark it missed the mirror or the detector. Still, it would be in sync with the other been. Of course, with that kind of setup, the Earth's rotation would likely bend the mirrors path from being straight and it would skew the angles ome and you would end up with faulty results anyways. While the experiment was seriously flawed and gave a false negative, it also gives us the answer how to fix it. If the Earth's velocity cannot affect the speed of light, like a train cannot affect the constant speed of sound, that measuring each direction of the path heading into or against Earth's ultimate direction of travel will show different results. Those differening times can easily be used to then calculate Earth's ultimate velocity. The secret is to never use a mirror. Sending anything traveling along at a constant speed relative to another constant speed will never show a result if you have it turn around and go the opposite direction. It will always end up averaging the route journey and erase any Delta value. The light beams should be measured only from source directly to detector. It would be best to have two opposing beams running Iin parallel, both fired at the same time. The detectors can then compare the differences and then see if there is really a change in the timing.

[@luciferchavei1653]

Watch It

[@Rigg5]

Assumes earth is a globe. Assumes earth spins. Aether wins

[@EnergyTRE]

if they only new they needed a gause meter..... we are bathed in emf daily.

[@marekm6621]

The earth is stationary.

[@heliogabriel8125]

Great video I'm surprised with those flatearth dummies saying it's a lie. Maybe it's failure in knowledge, or maybe ethical failure.

[@banjobear3867]

The flat Earth society is a psyop. The heliocentric model, however, seems forced and has factors that do not add up right. Can you explain to me how an object in a highly elliptical orbit can move at a constant speed of mach 88? (Without changing speeds) Then, which atmospheric force, or otherwise, is it that negates the consequences of that flux/ inertial force?

[@bgilchrist228]

@@banjobear3867 And this object spins while revolving around the sun, so it changes acceleration continuously.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

No, it does not. These people do not understand electromagnetism. They were testing along the wrong plane, which was parallel with the earth's surface. If you turn the plane so that it is perpendicular to the earth's surface and perform the experiment, the motion of the fringe shift is clearly visible with the naked eye.

[@kseriousr]

@@banjobear3867 Elliptically orbiting objects do not have constant speed. According to Kepler's law, objects cover the same area in the same time, which translates to slower orbital velocity the farther you are from the orbital center. For simplicity, you average out the numbers.

[@kseriousr]

@@bgilchrist228 The spinning itself barely contributes to the larger picture. Earth's own spin is the result of the conservation of angular momentum and it doesn't require any torque or acceleration. The rotation around the sun, however, does require centripetal acceleration, which it gets from gravitational force (or from the spacetime curvature, whichever you prefer.)

[@qualquan]

Very poorly done. The main difference between water and light waves not mentioned. In classic water waves the water particles oscillate up and down but do not travel longitudinally, only the up and down oscillation does. So a medium is necessary which is the same as the oscillating particle, namely water. Ditto for waves in a rope. The medium is the rope. Thus the medium is ALWAYS the same as the oscillating, non travelling particle. In marked contrast the photon does travel longitudinally so it does not require a medium to oscillate up and down and if there were a medium it would be made up of non travelling light itself which is patently ridiculous. Also does the photon oscillate up and down (transversely) physically while also physically travelling longitudinally, or is the transverse wave a wave of probability with the wavelength proportional to the photons energy? Probably the latter. But alas none of this was discussed. What a shame!

[@hamsandwichlover3075]

the animations were so helpful, along with the asmr voice of course

[@davidwilkie9551]

An Explanation by Observation is Disproof Methodology by default, WYSIWYG e-Pi-i universal pulse-evolution holography, a Unitary-duality Resonance in/of QM-TIME Singularity-point Completeness equivalent to a hologram of Fusion-Fission Function real-time relative-timing sum-of-all-histories frozen phase-locked coherence-cohesion Actuality. If we had invested our own lives in a particular Explanation+/-, that was made certain by actual Physics example, a Sciencing categorization approach compels the Agnostic neutrality of seeing the fact until another example denies the Observation, but it doesn't happen when the mechanism is applicable all-ways all-at-once here-now-forever.

[@JeshuSavesEndTimeMinistry21C]

1913 Effect Fringe Shift 1887 Failed

[@mohinderkaur6671]

Floated in a pool of mercury!

[@cigomba]

With the James Webb Telescope, we now know that space is actually filled with something. Lots and lots of universes. Also antimatter! Very interesting stuff. Great videos. I'm learning a lot.

[@odairfernandes1912]

Sorry but... the ether (aether) does exist.

[@Heaven351]

Yes it does. It's called " quantum vacuum " nowadays and also calked as zero point Field in QFT . It makes up the dark matter as aether is a superfluid and its energy density is dark energy. What do you think??

[@lidarman2]

The experiment finally worked...for gravity waves.

[@maciejnajlepszy]

Galileo was wrong, the church was right.

[@aminnifzi5190]

How?

[@maciejnajlepszy]

@@aminnifzi5190 Google it and read that book, you won't be disapointed.

[@maciejnajlepszy]

@@aminnifzi5190 Just google the title and you'll know.

[@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns]

Nope. The church could not make any solid pronouncement at the time despite the evidence that was pointing to a heliocentric system. It did not take the heliocentric position until several centuries afterwards once science could clearly show which model was more accurate. Despite the Galileo debacle, the Copernican system was still taught by Jesuit educators throughout Europe as a sub-field of mathematics. It was used as a practical method to predict planetary conditions. How does one explain retrograde motion of the planets. You cant with the geocentric model. With regards to the church's reaction to Galileo: 1st, the church was never against the science, but treaded carefully. A claim made by many enemies of the church that the institution is against science. 2nd, Gallio was warned not to make pronouncements as stated facts. In his own bombastic attitude, he went out and made public declarations. He did make a number of erroneous claims. in the inquisition Galileo had enemies that were steadfast in their assumptions about geocentricism, but there were a number of other prelates who were willing to accept heliocentricism, but threw caution in the wind. 3rd, during that period the church was fighting the protestant reformation, it didn't need a man like Gallio to question scripture calling it erroneous. Scripture is not erroneous, you need biblical hermeneutics to interprete the bible.

[@maciejnajlepszy]

@@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns If you take the heliocentric model with its rocket-science predictions of planetary movements and set the reference point as the immobile Earth, you have the geocentric model that includes retrograde motion and everything. Is it that hard to imagine?

[@okiewind8403]

His experiment was very successful…in proving that the earth is stationary and not flying through a vacuum of space 🙄

[@lgp6344]

Earth is not a spinning ball

[@wydopnthrtl]

Nor is the ground exhibiting rigid body rotation w/translation.

[@Aurora666_yt]

Why not?

[@hansvetter8653]

This video is not telling the truth! The original protocol for that michelson-moorley-experiment in 1887 documents a result of around 10 km/sec ... ... which is much below the expected value around 30 km/sec ... but explains why Michelson never gave up doing further experiments ...

[@Enko1989]

It sounds like the ether was just time and space

[@haleygilmour9393]

I get that this is a physics video and all, but are we just gonna ignore that the 1800s were politically tranquil? Not full of anti-immigration propaganda and that "settling" the western frontier was pretty deadly and destructive to Native Americans? No? Okay then

[@dreddnott]

An empire on the rise is very different from one near collapse.

[@rajeev_kumar]

Ether does exist and I can prove it mathematically.. I can explain the result of the experiment too with ether..

[@ericsu4667]

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

[@tuni496]

I think what we call aether could be space time it can combine to form the unified theory that einstein failed to explain

[@Information_Seeker]

aether being relative reference frame (aka spacetime)+pilot wave+ matter and energy being effectively "drops" of spacetime explains almost everything I can think of, from quantum phenomenon to antimatter to refractive indexes to how galaxies don't spin apart to universal expansion.

[@aerodynamico6427]

"It can be combine"? Your English is as terrible as your physics!

[@MilesColtrane.]

@@aerodynamico6427 calm the fuck down:)

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

Michelson was correct. His instrument was not dependable. If he had turned the plane so that it was perpendicular to the earth's surface, he would have detected a large change in the fringe shift.

[@NeroDefogger]

no, I can't stand this

[@juliorosas-cortes424]

i still dont get how this proves that the earth is the center of the universe. LOL some of you will know what im talking about. lol

[@TaigiTWeseDiplomat--Formosan]

0.0

[@philoso377]

Faked by misconceptions of Aether.

[@rajeev_kumar]

Speed of light is enormous implies ether density is negligible not it's stiffness is very high..y u jerks interpret it in a wrong way..

[@Heaven351]

If aether has very low density then it ought to be that it's stiffness / rigidity or elasticity is very very high and more the higher elasticity more light travel faster as light is a longitudinal pressure wave in aether .

[@421sap]

In Jesus' Name, Amen. God bless you ✝️

[@flatearthcontinuum1188]

lmao...only a jester would present this experiment as one that was designed to test for an aether...they were trying to proving earth was flying through space and failed...... obviously. lmao

[@joshpierce9089]

If you really look into unbiased opinion beforehand Wikipedia says both theory's are correct now how on Earth are both correct hahaha it cannot be relatively obviously is exactly what it is called a theory just like if I said my theory is green is purple you would say ahhh no it isn't that would mean I'd be like relative in fact Einstein couldn't get around this so falsely made up relative okie dokie ok then moving forward let's truly consider and appreciate and honor the Father of creation yes the Lord of host is he!!!!!

[@carloberg8772]

you're goofy . did you really write this or is it some computer generated gibberish ?

[@carloberg8772]

you're goofy . did you really write this or is it some computer generated gibberish ?

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

Both theories are mathematically equivalent. Big difference.