Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment
Again, all MM does is help show that aether is BS.
Remember the paradox you are yet to solve?
You have Earth moving w.r.t. the aether, but at rest w.r.t. the aether.
An impossibility.
Which part you didn't understand? Once again, just for you :
The Michelson-Morley experiment was not the only one that was
of concern to Einstein, however. In fact, since Einstein was well aware
of previous experiments with the same results, he probably would have
expected a negative result from Michelson-Morley. We suspect this to be
the case since interviews with Einstein show that he was more concerned
with the results of experiments performed about 10-50 years earlier.
Robert Shankland’s interview with Einstein reveals the details:
Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had
been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of
moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical
aberration, especially Airy’s observations with a water-filled
telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Why would the “Fizeau experiment” and “especially Airy’s
observations with a water-filled telescope,” cause such consternation in
the mind of Einstein? Very simply, Armand Fizeau and George Biddell
Airy’s experiments are two of the foremost evidences of a motionless
Earth ever produced by man. Einstein’s contemporary, Hendrik
Lorentz , stated quite succinctly that these experiments put unbridled fear
into the science establishment. In remarking on those same experiments
Lorentz wrote this astounding admission: “Briefly, everything occurs as
if the Earth were at rest...”
Eventually, it would take the full force of Relativity theory and its attendant
Lorentzian-derived “transformation equations” to make even an attempt at
explaining the amazing results of Fizeau, Airy and various stellar aberration
experiments.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was merely a desperate effort, using more
sophisticated equipment, to overturn Fizeau and Airy’s findings, but as
noted above, it failed to do so.
Einstein’s biographer probably didn’t even know this history
when he wrote that, after the Michelson-Morley experiment, men were
faced with the possibility of “scuttling the whole Copernican theory.”
Unlike Einstein, most such biographers have fixated on the cart but were
rather oblivious to the horse. All in all, we can say this much for
Einstein: although his theories were certainly fantastic to the point of
absurdity, at least he was smart enough to know from whence his
opposition came. In the battle for the cosmos, the unexpected results of
the Fizeau and Airy experiments had already put modern science on trial,
but since they both produced anti-Copernican results, the clarion call to
the courtroom was not being trumpeted to the rest of the world. For the
rest of his career Einstein would do everything in his power to stop it
from sounding. As van der Kamp has stated: “Yes, I think I understand
the sentiment motivating him. If we cannot prove what we a priori
‘know’ to be true [a moving Earth], then we have to find a reason why
such a proof eludes us .” And thus was born the theory of Relativity.
All claims that the Earth is moving based on stellar aberration are presumptuous,
since from Airy’s experiment it has been proven that the necessity of tilting
a telescope to catch all of a star’s light is due to a fixed Earth in a moving star system,
not a moving Earth in a fixed star system.
Interestingly enough, the type of experiment Airy performed was suggested more than a
century earlier in 1766 by Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711-1787), a Jesuit
astronomer, and again by Fresnel in 1818, which may have been the source of Airy’s
idea. In 1746 Boškovic published a study on the elliptical orbits of the planets based
on the Copernican system (De Determinanda Orbita Planeta ope catoptrica, Rome
1749). He published a second edition in 1785 ( Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et
Astronomiam, Bassan, 1785). Perhaps if Boškovic had had the good fortune to
perform an Airy-type experiment, he might have thought twice about adopting the
Copernican system.
When one reads Einstein’s works there appears to be no
ostensible concern that these experiments could “scuttle the whole
Copernican theory,” nevertheless, there is an undercurrent in his writings
that he is indeed cognizant of such implications yet does his best not to
alarm the world.
Relativity theory, by its very nature, is especially susceptible to
anti-Copemican interpretations, since for everything that Relativity
claims for itself in the way of a moving Earth in a fixed universe can
easily be “relativized” for a fixed Earth in a rotating universe. In fact,
stellar aberration was indeed a major concern of Einstein’s for that very
reason, since Relativity theory, in principle, demands equal viability for
both of the aforementioned perspectives. 492 Einstein’s concern was
justified. As we will see, Airy’s experiment threw a wrench into the
reciprocity of Relativity, for it demonstrated that it really does make a
difference whether the Earth is moving or at rest in regards to how light
from a star travels through a telescope mounted on the Earth.
Consequently, Einstein could not “relativize” the results of Airy’s
experiment, since stellar aberration provided a distinstion he could not
readily overcome. Consequently, Einstein would be forced to resort to
the ad hoc “field transformation” equations of Henrick Lorentz to answer
Airy’s results; and although others didn’t voice their opinions too loudly
for fear of being ostracized, everyone knew that Einstein’s efforts were
just mathematical fudge factors. There was one inescapable fact that
Airy’s telescope was revealing: barring any mathematical fudging, Earth
was standing still and the stars were revolving around it, not vice-versa.
ON TOP OF THAT :
Enter Augustin Jean Fresnel (1788-1827). Fresnel worked with
Arago on various occasions, and it was left to Fresnel, the more famous
of the two, to explain Arago ’s results by retaining the moving Earth
model. Both Arago and Fresnel were advocates of the wave theory of
light, and Arago asked Fresnel if it would be possible to explain the
results of his starlight experiment by the wave theory. Fresnel came up
with an ingenious answer and explained it to Arago in a letter dated...
He postulated that there was no effect on the incidence of
starlight because the ether through which it traveled was being
“dragged,” at least partially, by the glass of the telescope. Because ether
was understood to penetrate all substances, Fresnel hypothesized that
there was a certain amount of ether trapped within the glass, and this
amount of ether would be denser than, and independent from, the ether in
the surrounding air. The key to understanding this theory is that Fresnel
held that the ether outside the glass was immobile. As the glass moved
with the Earth’s assumed movement and against the immobile ether
outside, the glass would “drag” its trapped ether with it. Thus Fresnel
conveniently concluded that Arago couldn’t detect any difference in the
speed of light because the glass in his experiment was dragging the ether
just enough in the opposite direction to the Earth’s movement so as to
mask the Earth’s speed of 30 km/sec through the immobile ether.
To understand the rationalization of Fresnel’s “drag” to explain
Arago’s results, let’s use an example. We have two telescopes, one
hollow and one filled with glass. Both telescopes are viewing the same
star. Will each telescope measure the same aberration (bending) of the
starlight? One would think that, since light bends appreciably more in
glass, that the glass telescope should show considerably more bending of
the starlight compared to the hollow telescope, just as when we put a
pencil in a glass of water and notice the pencil appear to bend in the
water. (We would notice the same bending if we put half of the pencil in
a glass cube). But as we will see shortly, all such telescopic views of
stars will show no more bending of starlight in the glass telescope than in
the hollow telescope. There is something about the incidence of starlight
received on the Earth that causes this strange phenomenon. As we will
see, the natural and least complicated answer for this phenomenon is that
Earth is not moving, and since the stars, although moving, are so very far
away, the angle of incidence of their light will be virtually the same on
one side of the Earth as on the other, that is, it will always be straight
overhead and thus cause no refraction or diffraction through our air
telescope as opposed to our glass telescopes.
Once again, how did Fresnel explain this phenomenon using the
model of an Earth moving at least 30km/sec around the sun and against
the incidence of starlight? As noted above, he claimed that the glass
telescope had a certain amount of ether contained within it that was
denser than the ether outside. When the starlight enters the glass
telescope, the extra ether, by using the Earth’s movement, had the ability
to “drag” the starlight sufficiently enough away from the immobile ether
in the air to make the light within the glass appear to equal the speed of
the starlight in the hollow telescope. Incidentally, glass could perform
this feat, according to Fresnel, because the light entering it was
understood as a wave, whereas if light were composed of particles,
Fresnel’s theory would not work.
By this clever manipulation of something he
couldn’t even detect (i.e., the ether) and a nature of light he
hadn’t even proven (i.e.,
exclusively waves), Fresnel helped science avoid having to entertain a
non-moving Earth as the most likely answer to Arago’s puzzling
findings. Obviously, to those of honest persuasion, Fresnel’s explanation
appears to be
a little too convenient, especially since he arrived at his
solution without any physical experimentation; rather, he merely
postulated various assumptions just so he and Arago could escape the
geocentric implications that were haunting them and the rest of the
science community. As one heliocentrist seeking to soften the blow
states:
It is possible generally to prove how Fresnel’s theory entails
that not a single optical observation will enable us to decide
whether the direction in which one sees a star has been changed
by aberration. By means of aberration we can hence not decide
whether the Earth is moving or rather the star: only that one of
the two must be moving with respect to the other can be
established. Fresnel’s theory is hence a step in the direction of
the theory of relativity . Although “Relativity” theory would eventually be called to make
an unprecedented rescue for Copemicanism, as this saga progresses we
will see that it, too, offers no satisfactory escape from Arago or the other
stellar aberration experiments that would be performed in the coming
years.
One problem led to another, and, in light of these intricate
experiments, there would be no peace for those resting on the laurels of
Copernicus and Kepler. Obviously, in order to add some legitimacy to
Fresnel’s hypothesis, another experiment had to be devised.