Another Way of Looking at the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results

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.

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?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. 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. 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.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.--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.

If it had not been for that first star whose death throes not only scattered the elements up to iron that it had produced during it’s lifetime but also scattered those trans-ferrous elements produced during its supernova phase, then our collapsed solar clouds would have produced gas-ball planets consisting only of those few primary elements. Life, as we know it, would never have happened.After Mrs Santa initial clean-up, the earth had cooled sufficiently so that Santa’s next gift, the spark of life, was lit on the third planet. By this time, most of the planets had been pulled closer to the solar plane and the largest planetoids that had been captured by most planets were also pulled down closer to the solar plane. This pulling down action was organized by the levering action of the large combined masses of the sun and Jupiter that pulled and pushed down into their revolving plane. Those planets that still exhibit the greatest inclination to the ecliptic plane are Pluto, 17 degrees and 9 minutes (because it is the furthest and also has a small mass) and Mercury, 7 degrees (because of its small mass of 0.05 earth masses)..The Jupiter/solar center of mass (nearly 500,000 miles from the center of the sun in the direction of Jupiter) while the actual oscillating point that is the real total solar system center of mass that erratically oscillates above and below this 500,000 mile point. These oscillations should be religiously copied by the sun and by Jupiter. Their large masses make these motions impossible. So, since these motions are a must and since they cannot be adhered to a compensatory motions have to occur. These compensatory motions are reflected back to the planets themselves. Not only that, but the reflected motions are imposed on those planetary actions that create the greatest erraticity in the center’s of mass differential.By now, the velocity of counter revolutionary bodies (that produce the greatest eccentricity) have been reduced to the point that those masses no longer exist because they have been captured by other planets or have crashed into other planets or into the sun itself. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter could be the result of one of these collision.Next, the orbital eccentricities of the planets (that also contributes to the eccentricities) have been greatly reduced to near circular orbits.. Again, the greatest eccentricities remaining are those of Pluto (0.249) and Mercury (0.206).Next, the orbits of the planets have been pushed into spaced locations that greatly reduce the probability planetary conjunctions. Planetary conjunctions cause the largest peaks of eccentricity and are therefor their occurrences are reduced by these orbit adjustments.All of these adjustments which keeps trimming our tree are still going on. Motions adjusts have their greatest noticeable impact on the lightest planet which is also the closest one to the oscillating solar center of mass. This planet is of course Mercury. It’s no wonder that they are noticed as an excessive orbital precession of that planet..Life on the third planet is now the most ostentatious adornment on our cosmic Christmas Tree. It has provided the lights for our tree for a long time. Periodic disasters have not yet been able to snuff it out.I hope that y’all have the greatest of Merry Christmases and may your New Year be filled with all the necessities that your family requires.P.S. What happened to the resot of the kibitzers Percy?

Seems like I've stretched everbody's credibility to the limit and the elastic broke. Now no responses or even negative comments. Oh well, gotta find someone else to prod somewhere else.Did a little more thinkin about our messages.One of them was about gravitation (yes again). Seems that we generally think of gravitation as a force that occurs betweeen large bodies when in fact it is a force that really relates to the smallest of particles. What we really talk about is summation of all of these minute forces between all of the particles contained in those large bodies. In fact, our gravitational formala F=Gm1m2/r2 relates to the summation of all these collective minute forces.Just a passing though. Now more thing associated with this view.Y'all take care now, y'hear

---

baloneydetector#zero