Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
196 online now:
DrJones*, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 194 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,516 Year: 1,264/23,288 Month: 1,264/1,851 Week: 388/320 Day: 88/72 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Way of Looking at the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (366236)
11-27-2006 10:08 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-27-2006 10:25 PM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded

AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1945
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 5 (366401)
11-27-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero
11-27-2006 10:08 AM


Is It Science or Is It Baloney?
All I can say is "Is It Science"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 11-27-2006 10:08 AM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 11-28-2006 9:08 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12655
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 3 of 5 (366467)
11-28-2006 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
11-27-2006 10:25 PM


Re: Is It Science or Is It Baloney?
The opening message of this thread was already posted as Message 98 of the No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper thread. Cavediver posted a positive response there, so I don't see any problem promoting this to either Is It Science? or Big Bang and Cosmology.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-27-2006 10:25 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 11-28-2006 9:16 AM Admin has not yet responded

baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (366469)
11-28-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
11-28-2006 9:08 AM


Response to Percy
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 11-28-2006 9:08 AM Admin has not yet responded

AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1945
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 5 of 5 (366474)
11-28-2006 9:50 AM


Thread copied to the Another Way of Looking at the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020