@Rabinoz, you are such a slow learner...
SLOW LEARNER synonyms :
not fast
slow-witted
thick-headed
slow on the uptake
not quickly
thick
slow
awkward
dumb
sloppy
dunce
dull
bumbling
goofy
READ AND LEARN :
Here, once again, we see that
Einstein and the rest of modern science got themselves into this conundrum by assuming, as an absolute fact of science and the foundation upon which all other experiments are to be interpreted, that the Earth is revolving around the sun. At the very same time, they admit there is no optical experiment devised that can prove the assumption. What is Einstein’s solution? If we can’t prove it by an optical experiment, we can still assume the Earth is moving and convince people it is so by simply inventing a whole new physics – Special Relativity.
As he says himself:
…
to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result. – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169.
Hence, with this evidence in the background, it is safe to say that Einstein’s theory of Relativity was based and formulated, at least in large part, upon the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In fact, it could be said that Einstein was at the mercy of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Even though
Albert Michelson and
Edward Morley promised in their original 1887 paper that “the experiment would be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided,” they never produced another set of readings.
The whole world was dependent on only 36 readings taken over six hours in four days,a pittance by scientific standards.With all these “negative” experimental results, in addition to those of Michelson-Morley in 1881 and 1887,
the evidence was mounting like flood water at the dam. If someone did not find an answer soon, the dam was going to break.On the macro-level, there were only two possible answers: (a) the Earth was motionless in space, or (b) the Earth was carrying the ether with it as it revolved around the sun. But since having the Earth carry the ether led to difficulties with the observed aberration of starlight (as we saw with the
Arago,
Airy and
Fresnel affair), this left only a motionless Earth to solve the problem. Of course, that solution was “unthinkable” to modern man.
Because the attempts of
Lorentz and
Poincaré at answering
Michelson-Morley,
Lodge,
Brace,
Rayleigh and
Trouton-Noble were unsatisfactory to Einstein, he set out to create his own theory, and one that would put a significant demarcation between all past science and future science.
In fact, so pressured was Einstein to explain these experiments that, in his effort to save Copernicus, he would end up destroying the idea of a heliocentric system in exchange for an a-centric system, as well as obliterating Isaac Newton’s concept of “absolute space.”
Although Newton did not believe that absolute motion could be detected by mechanical means (since all objects were in motion), this left room for absolute motion to be detected by non-mechanical devices, namely light. But because
Hoek’s,
Airy’s, and
Michelson-Morley’s experiments with light did not detect absolute motion through a medium (the medium commonly known as “ether”),then Einstein understood that he had two choices: either Earth was not in motion,or the ether did not exist and absolute motion could never be detected, even when using light. The difference between Newtonian Relativity and Einsteinian Relativity is that the former says absolute motion cannot be detected by mechanical means, while the latter says it cannot be detected either by mechanical or non-mechanical means.
The above chart is taken from Wikipedia.
In each case it can be seen that, similar to Michelson-Morley, the “Fring shift measured” is a fraction of the “Fringe shift expected.” Yet for some odd reason, each experiment (except for two unexplained instances of Miller’s) says “yes” to the column of “Null result.” Hence, all the contributors to Wikipedia for this topic assume the Earth is revolving around the sun as the foundational basis for interpreting whether the results are “null.”
A third choice not favorable to Einstein, and the one that would favor Newtonian Relativity, was that the ether moved with the Earth and at the same speed, commonly known as “ether entrainment.” Various modern ether theories opt for this choice since they reject Relativity theory but still believe a moving Earth is a sacrosanct fact of science. As
Martin Selbrede notes:
The problem with these ether entrainment models is a serious one. It is that we appear to have ether entrainment for the velocity around the sun, which is a very fast velocity, and no apparent ether entrainment for the rotational velocity at the equator of a thousand miles per hour. So why is it that the faster speed has no entrainment and this lower speed does?
Entrainment models can’t explain that.What we know is that the ether is there and it is consistent. As
Herbert Ives acknowledged:
The frequent assertion that ‘the
Michelson-Morley experiment abolished the ether’ is
a piece of faulty logic. When
Maxwell predicted a positive result from the experiment he did so on the basis of
two assumptions;
the first, that the light waves were transmitted through a medium,
the second, which was not realized until pointed out by
Fitzgerald, that the measuring instruments would not be affected by motion. The null result of the experiment proved some assumption made in predicting a positive result to be wrong. The experimental demonstration of the variation of measuring instruments with motion, in exactly the way to produce a null result, shows that it was
the second assumption alone that was wrong;
leaving evidence for a transmitting medium, as derived from aberrational and rotational phenomena [cf.,
Arago,
Airy, et al.],
as strong, if not stronger, than ever.Einstein opted to eliminate the ether and resign the world to having no absolutes. As he developed his theory to support that choice, he was hailed as the greatest scientist the world has ever known. Modern humanity was on the brink of utter humiliation before the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Babylonians, but Einstein, at least so the world thought, saved them from having to bow the knee.
The fact that Einstein asserted that the Lorentz transformation equations were the basis of the special theory, and these are, of course, purely mathematical, means that, in so far as the theory is considered to have any physical implications, these implications must be the result of the interpretation of mathematical expressions in physical terms. But in this process there can be no guarantee that contradictions will not arise,and, in fact, serious contradictions have have arisen which have marred the special theory. Half a century of argumentation has not removed them, and the device of calling them only apparent contradictions(paradoxes) has not succeeded in preventing the special theory of relativity from becoming untenable as a physical theory.
As
Martin Selbrede notes:
We say that the result is truthful and you should believe the detector,and they say, ‘No, we have to explain away the result of the detector because we know that the Earth is in motion regardless of the speedometer telling us it is at zero. So if Einstein’s explanation of the non- zero result is put aside, then we have only one alternative left,which is that the measurement is correct and the Earth isn’t in motion at all. So when people say, ‘Well, the geocentrists are not scientific because they don’t follow the experiments,’ no, we are the ones who actually point to the experiments and say, ‘hello, wake up, zero mile per hour motion according to this instrument.’ And that’s where modern science has fallen apart ever since.Eliminating the ether certainly solved a lot of problems for Einstein, but
like any ad hoc solution, it created additional ones.
William Magie, president of the American Physical Society,
pointed out one of the obvious ones in 1911. To his scientific constituents he complained :
The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?Try to answer this one smart guys!!!EDIT : Still no reply from fake astronaut Smith...