*0.* Of his own MMX experiment, *Albert Michelson* said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)
*1.* The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether, a medium in space proposed to carry light waves. First performed in Berlin in 1881 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and E.W. Morley in the United States.
The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. It was reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which the Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of the Earth's motion and the speed of light at right angles to the Earth's motion. SOURCE :
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/michelson_morley.html*1A* The purpose of the Morley-Michelson experiment was to detect the motion of the lab relatively to the inertial system of the luminiferous aether, i.e. the "aether wind". SOURCE :
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34689/what-were-the-intention-conclusions-for-michelson-morley-experiment*2.* Here are Michelson’s own words:
“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)
So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.
He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - *Einstein:* The Life and Times, p. 107.
What Einstein meant to say by these words was this : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!
IN THIS CASE (AETHER EXISTS) EVEN IF THE RESULT OF MMX HAD BEEN LITERALLY "NULL" RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST, BECAUSE :
*A. EXISTENCE OF AETHER + B. NULL RESULT = C. THE EARTH IS AT REST = D. NO ORBITAL MOTION OF THE EARTH = F. NO ROTATIONAL MOTION OF THE EARTH*
So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.
Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.
This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. *But heliocentrism must have both,* otherwise it is falsified!
*3.* In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved.
These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):
But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist *G. J. Whitrow* in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (*G. J. Whitrow,* The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).
Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions.
*Arthur Eddington* said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).
*Adolf Bakersaid* "Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be at rest' ... it was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space".
Historian *Bernard Jaffe* said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).
As "preposterous" as the measurements of *Arago*, *Trouton* and *Noble*, *Airy*, *Thorndyke* and *Kennedy*, *Theodore de Coudres* and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
*Giancoli* put it this way : "But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe".
That of course is unacceptable to anyone who has decided that the earth is a very ordinary second class planet speeding through some insignificant backwater of the universe. *Another ad hoc was required to save the theory from the evidence.*
The man who came up with the idea for the required ad hoc was an lrish physicist called *George Francis Fitzgerald.* His suggestion was developed into the idea that if Michelson and Morley's apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's spaceship) at high speed it becomes slightly shorter than when it was stationary. AN INTERESTING IDEA To accept such an idea as scientific one should, of course, take measurements and check that it is so. Our intrepid motorist (or space traveller) takes his ruler with him and measures his vehicle to see if it really does become shorter. Unfortunately the ruler must get shorter by exactly the right amount to make the measurement identical to that when it is stationary.
*Measurement says it does not get shorter.*
Then how do we know it really does get shorter?
Obviously it must get shorter.
Otherwise Michelson and Morley's experiment shows that the earth stands still.
But there is a way to test for "Fitzgerald contraction". An interferometer would get shorter by exactly the right amount only if the lengths of the two arms were exactly equal. But if an interferometer were made with, say, one arm only half the length of the other, the contraction would no longer be just right, and a fringe shift would be observed. *Such an interferometer was built.*
It is interesting to see *Arthur Beiser's* comment on this experiment:- "We might be tempted to consider the *Michelson-Morley* result solely as evidence for the contraction of the length of their apparatus in the direction of the earth's motion.
This interpretation was tested by *Kennedy and Thorndike* using an interferometer with arms of unequal length. *They also found no fringe shift.*
It was not only optical experiments that were giving this problem. Electromagnetic experiments, such as that of *Trouton and Noble,* also suggested that the earth does not move.
It is intriguing to note that all the experiments fit in with the idea that the earth does not move ... without the need for any ad hocs at all.