Another Way of Looking at the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results

About 40 years ago I wrote and article that I entitled “Logical Reanalysis of the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results to Establish the Correlation Between Gravity and Electromagnetism”. After I’d written it, I filed it. I just ran across it a few weeks ago. After re-reading it, I realized that I’d been full of myself in those days. But, it does answer some of the questions about why I should think the way I do today.The article is too long to copy here as a thread. I haven’t been too lucky in that department either. It’s either too long, too controversial, too crazy, etc. What the heck, lets strike a happy ”medium’ and write a condensed version here.The experiment was run time and time again with the same result. No discernable ether or medium for our light-wave propagation. There were sad wave theorists and happy corpuscular theorists in those days. I, for one, could not junk the medium. I had to redefine it to explain the apparently negative result. The original idea is that the medium or ether had to be a fixed or a non-moving medium, and had to be completely permeable so that matter could pass directly through it without creating even a ripple. I contended that the experimental results had to mean that the medium’s original specifications were faulty.Our medium has only one requirement. It must be so constructed so that it permits electromagnetic intercourse between each and every body in the universe. This medium must be perfectly elastic, that is, it must allow itself to be dragged about in each and every direction at the exact velocity of each body in the universe. Such a medium would produce negative results in the experiment no matter which of the bodies or combination of bodies were used for the experiment.If we look around, we find that there is something that fits the requirements of this perfectly elastic medium. What does every body in the universe drag about with it that is related to every other body in such a manner. Why not gravitation itself. Why couldn’t light be propagated in or on the gravitational force that interrelates each and every body in the universe. Why not? It wouldn’t be the only force field that does so. The electrostatic field between the plates of a capacitor acts as a medium for the conduction of signal intelligence.The stretching and compression in the gravitational force as bodies move relative to each other would cause the frequency changes we know as the Doppler effect. The corpuscular nature of light is still maintained because light is produced and propagated in pulses which appear corpuscular when they strike an object.This is one of the basic reasons why my thinking could seem a little strange to you. Isn’t it amazing that a man like Einstein could arrive at relativity by completely bypassing the one step that was absolutely necessary to its logical deduction and paradoxically that this step (the unified field theory) was the one he tried to take after he had already unconsciously taken it? The logical progression for his determination could have be: (1) the establishment of gravity as the ether which provides a unified field theory, and (2) deduction of the side effects of this unified field theory which includes relativistic phenomena.

---

baloneydetector#zero

Thanks Percy. Is that somthing I do or somthing that is done for me?I did not know how to respond to the previous admininstrative comment. I felt like I had just declaimed one of my poems in front of an audience wearing only socks.

Your comment: Wouldn't that mean light is gravitational waves, since you are discribing light as being wave-like disturbances in the gravitational field?I haven't figured out how to put quotes in boxes yet. Anyway, light waves would not be considered gravitational waves because they occur on a gravitational medium. They would be considered as modulations on that medium. Light waves themselves can be modulated by many other electromagnetic waves and we do not classify them as light waves.

Son Goku. You wrote: Can you explain explicitly what you mean by "Occur on" and "Modulations".Modulation is a term for a very common process that can occur naturally or can be made to occur by man's intervention. The process is the imposition of a waveform (piggy-backing)on a medium which can tranmit that waveform. The simplest is what we do when we talk. Here we are vibrating our vocal cords which then modulate or vibrate the air's (our medium) molecules. The molulated air then carries this transverse wave which then can cause a diaphram to vibrate (another form of modulation). This vibrating diaphram in a microphone can be used to modulate another medium that converts this waveform to an electromagnetic waeform. This new waveform can then be used to modulate a carrier frequency (any fixed frequency in the spectrum) which now acts as our medium. These combined frequencies can now be transmitted where they now modulate the gravitational force that can now carry our information anywhere's in the universe. Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : correct typo

---

baloneydetector#zero

I cannot even imagine such a thing as a gravitational wave. Such a wave would require a ultra-massive oscillating mass. Even in deep space where massive bodies are found that are moving fast enough to tend to produce such a wave signal. These phenomenae include binary star systems, supernovae, pulsars, and black holes, among many others. The only problem here is that these bodies do not really oscillate. Binary star system revolutions would produce an unimaginably long wavelength years long. Supernovae would produce a weakening of the gravitational force equal to the amount of matter converted to energy. Pulsars rotate which would produce no oscillations. Black holes don’t do anything except increase in mass which would tend to increase the gravitational force. Where are the waves?There is a possibility of gravitational waves when we go down to very small bodies such as molecules, atoms and subatomic particles whose oscillations become more frenzied as temperature increases. The problem here is that gravitation is such a weak force and the masses of the particles are so small, that, at this level, gravitational waves would be all but undetectable.Why look for something that you can’t possibly find. I’m quite happy using gravitation as a medium for our electromagnetic waves.

---

baloneydetector#zero

You wrote: As a medium it doesn't have the required properties to carry light though. I can go into why if you want.Yes, I would like to know why you think that gravity cannot act as a medium. Please make your explanation simple enough for the geriatric set.You also wrote: What in particular do you find faulty with the explanation that light is oscillating electric and magnetic fields?*I have no trouble with that at all. It’s as natural as apple pie (is apple pie natural in Ireland?)..What I have trouble swallowing is it’s supposed ability to travel unsupported by anything. It’s a crime against nature.

Ah Percy, I do love those magically disappearing large masses, those super-velocity collisions where we create momentary energy traps we call particles, virtual particles and their associated forces and all those other beautifully engineered tests that we use in science today to prove almost anything we want.Originally, everything we consider as matter and their associated forces were all originally energy that inhabited a massless realm that had no dimensions and no time. When some of these energies became trapped into massy particles, their associated forces, which remained energy, still operated through this dimensionless, timeless realm.In fact, all our forces are unified through this realm. The unifying mathematics already exists. All we are trying to do is copy it into our own formulae.How does our formulae or even all our forces survive when our very weak gravitational force is made strong enough through huge collections of masses to implode all these masses into a black hole whose associated dimensions and time approach the dimensionless, timeless realm of energy. Our formulae are reduces to an alphabet soup and our particles condensed into dimensions where none of these forces can stilloperate. Further increases in mass would eventually implode our black hole into the realm of energy, if that is possible. For all we know, that has been, is, and will continue to go on and our universe could be recycling itself.

Sorry for the time required to respond to the last message. Had to move my rocker inside for comfort.Gravity is a force but, is not a waveform. To my way of thinking (flawed I'm sure), waveforms modulate a medium on which they travel. This does not mean that the medium does any traveling no more that the ocean water does when it is used to carry a wave. When energy is converted to massy particles, the particle retains it's relationship to all of the other massy particles which appears to us in the form of a gravitational force. This force does not travel hither and yon. It just represents the relationship that exists between one massy particle and all of the others its related to. I can't think of any other way of explaining it.I know that I do run on, but, I can't wave my arms and make all the other motions and facial expressions that I normally use to express myself. It's dangerous to stand close to me when I talk.

---

baloneydetector#zero

Is a fallacy cop another type of baloney detector?

Your right Percy, if gravity is found to be a wave, I’ll have to turn in my spurs and put my rocker out to pasture. Of course, that will happen soon anyways. I’m surprised that my mind hasn’t gone as far south as my body has-yet. That’s only my opinion. Some of you must think that I should be doing my rocking in a rubber room because of my wide-open spaced (LOL) ideas.The particle called Higgs boson is supposed to be the quantum of one of the components of a Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field acquires a non-zero value, which permeates every place in the universe at all times. You already know what I think about fields. Doesn’t this empty space stuff reminds you somewhat of that dimensionless, timeless energy realm.The dual wave/particle nature of electromagnetic radiation is explained by the fact that it is a wave and that this wave is not a continuous wave but consists of a fixed pulse which makes it also appear and act as a particle.The speed of light is fixed because it is transferred through our energy realm. In fact, in this realm, light itself does not take any time to travel from one place to another. Its instantaneous. Its apparent velocity is only detected from outside of this realm.This brings out another point. If light rides piggy back on gravity through our marvelous dimensionless, timeless energy realm, and, if it is an instantaneous transfer within this realm, then we can also suppose that this transfer is not willy-nilly. It is intentionally (can’t think of another word at the moment) transferred between two points. One point or particle that feels the need to radiate and because it senses another particle that needs that exact amount of energy to attain a higher energy level. These seperate particles could be at either end of the universe. In this realm that is not an impossibility since the energy levels of ALL is constantly sensed by ALL.I’m afraid Percy that I have no idea what evidence led me to my conclusions. There is so much data stored up there, that I can’t consciously separated the relevant from the irrelevant. As far as testable predictions are concerned, they have to come from better men than I am--like Charley Brown likes to say.You can order up the rubber room anytime you want Percy. If you do, my rocker goes with me.

No Percy, I’m not just throwing out ideas but golly Percy, how do you define Eureka? These ideas are not really new to me. I used to live in East Pepperell, MA and had to drive a minimum of 45 minutes to work at whatever Raytheon plant that they wanted me at that day. Very seldom did I remember my drives because all of these ideas would occupy the aware part of my mind. Once they settled, I’d sit in the Spa on Saturday mornings and write them down. After they were down on paper, I’d store it with all the other articles I’d written and then wait from someone else to publish. I already had a mountain of rejection slips.Now, I’m tired of waiting and my waiting time is running out. I’d better scatter a few of these ideas around to see if they germinate in more fertile grounds.You can always say that you met some nutter.......who thinks sideways instead of forward. For instance right now, I’m being amazed at your, and mine and all those other living organisms which have an ancestral family tree that has no holes whatsoever going back to the first stirring of life. Considering the hazards that these beings encountered, that is absolutely unbelievable. And yet we ponder other inconsequential things. Yes, we are all related. We are recycling atoms and molecules that Jesus, dinosaurs, microbes, viruses etc. have also used. How proud can we be when we are reusing particles that the most evil of humans have also used not only in their bodies but even in their feces.So Percy, what would you say if someone asked you about me? Some nutter.......some real nutter...

Hi Percy.I’ve enjoyed our visits very much. I don’t know any other way of contacting you. There were times during my first thread when the traumatic moments overwhelmed me because I took myself too serious. In appreciation, I’m writing you my first Christmas story. This is not a Eurika but, it is original.Once upon a time, back before Moses was a pup, a super massive gas giant of a star visited our galactic neighborhood. Back then, our neighborhood was nothing to brag about. It was just a vast conglomeration of gas clouds consisting of almost nothing but hydrogen and space. It had not even developed a noticeable gravitational centroid.This star gave us our first Christmas by dying in the form of a supernova. This supernova created new elements and scattered these blessing components throughout our neighborhood which seeded our clouds with something besides hydrogen and space. In response, our conglomeration of gas clouds developed a gravitational centroid. This gave our neighborhood the courage to start collapsing towards this centroid.This collapsing within the gravitational gradients of our galaxy gave our clouds their first spin. As it spun down, the most massive of the gas clouds became know as our proto-sun while the second was later to be named, proto-Jupiter. If these two protos had been alone, they would have loved it. They would each have revolved around a common center of mass which would have gone on happily orbiting around the galactic center in its own vast arm. This orbiting common center of mass would not have had any hitches in its git-along if they had been alone in the neighborhood.But, no, they were not alone. A few other smaller neighborhood gas clouds were also falling towards the gravitational centroid which was the common center of mass of the proto-sun and proto-Jupiter. These other smaller gas proto-planets caused hitches in the git-along of the two massive protos. The two massive protos would not gladly accept these hitches so, they changed things.First, the vast masses of the two largest protos started pulling the other smaller protos in a line which started flattening the 3-dimensional collapsing gas clouds towards the 2-dimensional form or a disc. This flattening evolutionary control of the solar plane would continue until the associated fluctuations in the solar system’s git-along had been reduced to zero. This has not yet happened and is still going on.Flattening of the clouds into the form of a disc started to cause other hitches in the evolving solar system’s git-along. The flattened orbits of the proto-planets were ellipsoids and not only that, but a few captured protos had the temerity of orbiting counter to the revolution of the two pro-giants and, the others had orbital periods that tended to cause conjunctions of the protoplanets. All of these motions caused hitches or oscillations in the proto solar system’s center of mass. The massiveness of the solar mass could not respond to these hitches so, it fought back by re-imposing the necessary modifying motions to the offending members.Our first Christmas was not over. By the time that the largest gas cloud had collapsed to the point where the gravitational pressure became sufficient to start our life giving thermonuclear fire at the center of the proto-sun the other gas clouds had also condensed. The lighting of that thermonuclear candle caused rush an outblowing commotion that most of remaining gas of the solar system’s gas cloud was blown away to reveal the presents under our first tree. These were the nuclei of the proto-planets. The inner planets were now bared to reveal the gifts of our first star, it’s remnants in the form of its ashes.For the next few billion years, Mrs Santa was kept busy with her gravitational broom sweeping the smaller stellar ashes under our galactic Christmas tree where their masses were added to the planets in the form of meteoric ornaments.By the way Percy, is this a legal addition to our thread? If it is, do you want to hear the rest of the story? If you do, I'll continue it.

OK Percy, I’m going to try to resurrect the reason for that gravitational medium Eureka.It occurred in my youth when I was about 35. I was in the throes of a particularly stressful period when my mind wouldn’t let me alone. It kept trying to find a logical explanation for the apparent negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Even though I had delved into all the reasons proposed at the time, I still could not accept that some type of ether did not exist. It was like trying to swallow an elephant sideways.Once I’d disregarded the possibility of any relativistic changes to the measuring apparatus and re-defined the probable ether as one that had to be dragged along by the earth at earth’s velocity, I happened upon the coincidence that the formulae for the gravitational force and electromagnetic radiation had some particular interesting similarities. F=Gm1m2/r2 and F=ke1e2/r2 are too particulary similar to be accidental as far as I was concerned. The /r2 part specially.Next, I started to reconstruct the other specifications that would fir the experimental result for our medium. It had to be perfectly elastic and permit itself to be dragged around at the exact velocity of each body in the universe. Again, gravity popped into my head because it does relate every body in the universe with every other body and it is perfectly elastic. This elastic quality seemed to be the last straw. As bodies move relative to each other, the gravitational force seems to contract when bodies move towards each other and it seems to stretch out when the bodies move apart. If light waves traveled on this medium, it’s wavelength would contract and stretch in the exact response as the weakening and strengthening of the medium. This would give us a Doppler effect for light.That was enough for me. I was sure I had posited a medium that would do the trick. Of course, that would mean that light would only travel between points that had a gravitational force in common. Light could not be radiated unless there was already an end point picked out.Right now, I can’t think of any other reasons for that particular Eureka. Is this enough reconstruction for the moment?

---

baloneydetector#zero

Your request for testable proof and geriatric pains are helping to promote a sleepless night. I hope that you do realize that any proof would not sit well with scientists who have been traveling down the wrong road for over a 100 years like you mentioned. Great men have proposed theories that would have been based on a fallacy.These theories have caused some erroneous learning. We have all fallen into that trap. For instance that question of yours--For example, what do you think would happen to light equidistant between two equal masses at the point where gravity cancels out?- presupposes that gravity can cancel out, when in fact it can’t. The gravitational force between two bodies never cancel out. Its strength does not vary at any point between the two bodies. Thus any piggy-backing waves would not have to change pigs in mid stream.That idea of the weakening of the gravitational force is a mis-interpretation based on that formula: F=Gm1m2/r2 . The /r2 part imparts that idea when in fact, no part of that formula varies so, that F must remain constant.Other fallacies arise from the so-called gravitational field. Magnetic fields do exist but gravitational fields cannot. The gravitational field is a mathematical construct that has been imposed the real world. It presupposes that a single body can create a gravitational time/space warping effect. Gravitational force is the product of two masses, not just one per F=Gm1m2/r2. I see two masses here. Where did the single mass come from?Any test would also have to involve an area where gravity can be excluded. I can’t at the moment visualize such a highly unlikely place. I’ve also been trying to finalize that “First Cosmological Christmas Story” and I find that I’m not a good juggler. One thing at a time is more in line with my capabilities.Good night Mrs Callabash wherever you are. You too Percy.

Hi Percy. This will be a fun one to respond to. I hope that you don’t resent any of my inputs that seem contradictory to your ideas. I never mean to be insulting but, my wife of 51 years tends to think that I do that all the time.First, let’s talk about your:As a spacecraft departs earth and approaches more and more closely to the moon, doesn't the gravitational attraction of the earth diminish and that of the moon increase?That is exactly true but, the gravitational force that increases and decreases is between the spacecraft and the earth and spacecraft and the moon. The gravitational attractive force between the earth and the moon is unchanged no matter where the spacecraft is located.Next:Have you ever heard of LaGrange Points? Where precisely enough gravity from two orbiting bodies cancels out to provide enough centripetal force for a third body of negligible mass to remain in a fixed position relative to the larger bodies?In other words, your statement that gravity doesn't cancel is contradicted by reality.Yes, of course I have. But, the same explanation applies. These points do not represent points where gravitational forces do not exist. They represent areas where a small negligible mass’ would have exactly matching gravitational forces between it and two other massive bodies like the earth and moon or the earth and the sun, etc. The balanced gravitational forces of two massive bodies combined with the centrifugal force are in balance at the Lagrangian points, allowing a third body of small mass to be stationary with respect to the first two bodies. I hope that this explanation does not contradict reality.Now, I wrote:That idea of the weakening of the gravitational force is a mis-interpretation of the based on that formula: F=Gm1m2/r2 . The /r2 part imparts that idea when in fact, no part of the formula varies so that F must remain constantThis statement of mine was meant to indicate that, for two masses m1 and m2 who’s mass cannot change and who both remain separated by a constant distance r, the gravitational force between them F remain constant. Other bodies between them cannot have any affect on this force whether they are spacecraft of mushrooms.Your related comment was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As your distance r from a body increases, the gravitational force exerted by that body diminishes proportional to the square of r. F is not a constant. Once again your statements are not consistent with reality.What do you mean by ”your distance’? If you are talking of a body that is not m1 or m2 but is positioned somewhere between the two, then F is a constant for m1 and m2. Any other body does not belong in the equation.Next:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the formula for finding the gravitational attraction between two bodies given their masses and the distance between their centers of mass. It's an approximation that assumes the bodies are perfectly spherical (usually a very safe assumption with planets given their fairly close approximation of sphericity and their great distance from one another), and it ignores relativistic effects, also usually a very safe assumption. I mention this not to call the equation into question, but to point out your error is reasoning in the wrong direction. You're taking a model of reality, the equation, and using it to reason back to the way reality must be. Since the model is only an approximation of reality, reasoning in this way will likely lead you to error. You must instead reason from reality back toward formulation of a model.Here, I confessed that I am a little stumped. When I first read it, I thought we were both talking about the same thing but from different viewpoints. The next time I read it, the opposite seems to be true. Let me try to try a different way of expressing myself and see if that helps.What I think I tried to say is that there is such a thing as a magnetic field. It is a real demonstrable thing because I remember the iron filings. I don’t think that we have a disagreement there. Next, I made a statement that there is no such thing as a gravitational field. I think that’s where it hit the fan. What I didn’t seem to say is that there is such a thing as a gravitational field equation. I don’t think we have an argument there either. This equation is a mathematical expression that permits anybody to plug in any value of m1, and m2 mass values and then provide a distance r between them and then arriving at a solution associated with these values. If we plot all possible m2 and r values associated with a specific m1 and then graph the results we have what looks like a plane area with a sharp dip at its center. m1 is at the center of the dip while all other positions represent m2 at associated distances from the dip. What we have just described is an m1 value that seems to have warped space/time. If we say that this is a real thing, we are taking a mathematical expression and imposing it on the real world and shouting Eureka. In the real world, there is a single m1 associated at each moment (not all moments at once) with a single m2 (not all possible m2s at once) which are separated by a specific r (not all possible r’s at once).Sorry Percy, but I sincerely doubt that this explanation is any better.And, lastly youur statement:There *is* such a thing as a gravitational field. Light passing through a gravitational field is bent by it. Light has no mass, by the way.If light’s electromagnetic wave uses the gravitational force as a medium, then the statement should read that a gravitational force is bent when it passes near a massive object. This statement means no more to me at the moment than it does to you. I haven’t even thought about yet. Give me a few more days and I might even try to squeeze out an answer.