## Michelson–Morley experiment

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
oreneorg
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

### Michelson–Morley experiment

How would one explain, in a simple way, the experiment of Michelson and Morley from the reciprocal system?

Philip
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:44 pm

### Re: Michelson–Morley experiment

My understanding of the Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was intended to use the motion of the Earth at different points in its orbit, either moving toward or away from the source of light, to check whether the speed of light was absolute or relative.

This is discussed in Larson’s book Beyond Newton, on pages 62-63.

Below is an extract:

Newton’s Laws of Motion are based on the primitive concepts of space and time: a three-dimensional Euclidean space (coordinate space) and a one-dimensional time progressing uniformly and having the same value at all points in space at each stage of the progression (clock time). For two hundred years these laws met every test, with nothing more than minor discrepancies which were not regarded very seriously. Then in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment shattered the foundations of Newton’s structure. Fig.3, adapted from Tolman,45 shows the nature of the problem introduced by the results of this experiment. Let us assume that a ray of light from a distant source S passes from A to B and from A’ to B’ in two parallel systems. Then let us assume that the systems AB and APB’ are in motion in opposite directions as shown, and are in coincidence as the light ray passes A and A’. Because of the motions of the respective systems, point B will have moved to some point C closer to A by the time the light reaches it, whereas B’ will have moved to some more distant point C’.
Yet if the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment are to be believed, the velocity of the incoming ray at C is identical with the velocity of the incoming ray at C’; that is, the velocity of light is independent of the reference system. As Tolman expresses it, the time required for the light to pass from A to C measures the same, as the time required to pass from A ’to C’: a conclusion which, as he says, is “in direct opposition to the requirements of so-called common sense.”45
This comment by Tolman shows very clearly just where and how the thinking of the scientific profession was diverted into the wrong channels. In reality the Michelson-Morley experiment does not indicate that the time ac is equivalent to the time a’c’; it merely shows that the velocity of light over the path AC is the same as the velocity over the path A’C’. The further conclusion that the two times are equivalent is not an experimental finding; it is an interpretation of the experimental findings in the light of the currently popular assumption as to the nature of time.
It is evident from the points brought out in the preceding paragraphs that we do not need to abandon common sense to explain this situation; all that we need to do is to get a broader view of time which will encompass all of its properties, not just the progression. The correct explanation of Tolman’s diagram is that points A and B are not only separated by the coordinate distance AB; they are also separated by an equal amount of coordinate time, since each unit of space, according to the Fundamental Postulates, is equivalent to a unit of time. The movement of point B to location C not only reduces the space separation between the original location of A and the new location of B by the; amount of coordinate space BC, but also reduces the time separation by bc, the same amount of coordinate time. If the velocity of the system AB is relatively low, as most velocities are in the world of our everyday experience, the time bc is negligible in comparison with the time of the progression, but if the velocity is great enough to make it necessary to take the distance BC into account, then we must also take the equivalent time be into account. The Newtonian concept of time in conjunction with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment leads to the relation
AC/t = A’C’/t, which is absurd, as Tolrman tells us. But when we realize that the motion which reduces the distance from AB to AC also reduces the time from ab to ac, the relation of the velocities in the two systems becomes AC/ac = A’C’/a’c’ which is fully in accord with both common sense and common mathematics.

Here is a link to the section of Larson’s Beyond Newton where this was extracted:
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bn/part03.htm

In summary, the presence of a 3D time component as proposed by the Reciprocal System resolves the Michelson-Morley experimental results.

bperet
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Michelson–Morley experiment

oreneorg wrote:How would one explain, in a simple way, the experiment of Michelson and Morley from the reciprocal system?
I will add the simple explanation: the aether (equivalent space--the motion of space due to coordinate time) moves along with the Earth like an atmosphere, out to the gravitational limit. All the experiment proved was that the "aetheric atmosphere," like the gaseous atmosphere, does not move with respect to the surface.
Every dogma has its day...

rossum
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

### Re: Michelson–Morley experiment

bperet wrote:I will add the simple explanation: the aether (equivalent space--the motion of space due to coordinate time) moves along with the Earth like an atmosphere, out to the gravitational limit. All the experiment proved was that the "aetheric atmosphere," like the gaseous atmosphere, does not move with respect to the surface.
There is a bunch of problems with the entrained aether theories. The entrained aether theories do not account correctly for starlight aberration. Here is an article by Joseph Levy which explains in some detail why the entrained theories are problematic and the Lorentz aether theory is better from his view. https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1885

In every Michelson-Moreley type experiment the aether drift is to certain degree visible. There is a natural connection between the Lorentz contraction/transformation, the quantum theory and electromagnetism: In every course of electromagnetism one (surprisingly) finds out that no correction to special relativity is needed since the Maxwell equations are already "relativistically correct". Now isn't there something fishy about "the crowning jewel of classical physics" being relativistically correct?! Students usually don't understand the significance of this but it basically says that in pure electromagnetism the relativity is superfluous and the Lorentz transformation is the only way how to change from one reference frame to another. Keeping in mind that Schrodinger wrote his equation based on assumption that matter is basically the same stuff as light - a kind of general electromagnetic wave, matter should than also behave using the same rules. If the the equations of Quantum mechanics are in accord with RS2 (as shown by K.V.K. Nehru) I think the answer to the Michelson-Morley experiment lies here.

If someone is interested I can post the details but it will take me some time.

oreneorg
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

### Re: Michelson–Morley experiment

Being able to deduce the Plank constant based on the reciprocal system is a great achievement that supports the authenticity of the reciprocal system ... But the reciprocal system can recreate or coincide with Einstein's equations on generalized relativity.
It would be another great pillar, to endorse the Reciprocal System.
A GPS uses the "space-time deformation" to find the exact coordinates, could a GPS be programmed equally through the Reciprocal System ?.
Moving to a biophysical terrain, Wilhelm Reich, solved the result of the experiment of Michelson Morley, considering that what was transmitted was not the photon. But the "organic-etheric excitation of the photon", which could be assimilated to that etheric atmosphere fixed to the earth that bperet comments.
In reality the photons are still and we would be "the masses", which would be generating those movements relative to them ???.
Poder deducir la constante de Plank, basándose en el Sistema reciproco es un gran logro que avala la autenticidad del sistema reciproco…Pero puede el sistema reciproco recrear o coincidir con la ecuaciones de Einstein sobre la relatividad generalizada.
Seria otro gran pilar, para avalar al Sistema Reciproco.
Un GPS utiliza la “deformación espacio-tiempo” para hallar las coordenadas exactas, podría un GPS programarse igualmente a través del Sistema Reciproco?.
Pasandose a un terreno biofísico, Wilhelm Reich, resolvia el resultado del experimento de Michelson Morley, considerando de que lo que se trasmitia no era el fotón. Sino la “excitación orgonico-eterica del fotón”, lo cual podría asimilarse a esa atmosfera eterica fija a la tierra que comenta bperet.
En realidad los fotones están quietos y seriamos “las masas”, los que estaríamos generando esos movimientos relativos respecto a ellos???.

bperet
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Michelson–Morley experiment

oreneorg wrote:It would be another great pillar, to endorse the Reciprocal System.
A GPS uses the "space-time deformation" to find the exact coordinates, could a GPS be programmed equally through the Reciprocal System ?.
GPS just uses highly accurate timing (atomic clock) and location information to triangulate a position on the ground. In simple terms, it sends out timestamp information as pulses that can be compared to the clock in the receiver, so the receiver knows exactly how long the pulse took to get there from the satellite. Since the waves travel at the speed of light, the duration can be converted to distance. (This is a similar technique that Zuoqian and I used to convert scalar motion into a coordinate system for computer program use.) The problem is then solved with a series of intersecting spheres. I have never heard of GPS using "space-time deformation."
oreneorg wrote:Moving to a biophysical terrain, Wilhelm Reich, solved the result of the experiment of Michelson Morley, considering that what was transmitted was not the photon. But the "organic-etheric excitation of the photon", which could be assimilated to that etheric atmosphere fixed to the earth that bperet comments.
I have been reading some of Reich's research... very interesting information. The concept of orgone can be easily understood as a "cosmic atmosphere" existing in 3D time, orthogonal to our conventional atmosphere. As such, orgone exists in the space between atmospheric molecules as an expansion or contraction (a push or pull, as Larson put it)--in equivalent space, and therefore orgone is subject to the same harmonic relationships that all equivalent space functions are. (This is a large subject to discuss; I should do it in a separate topic, but consider the harmonics of devices such as HAARP on weather control.)
oreneorg wrote:In reality the photons are still and we would be "the masses", which would be generating those movements relative to them ???
True. Photons exist between the material and cosmic, as they do not have a rotational base to determine which sector they belong to. On the material side, we see a photon slow down when it passes through a substance like glass, because glass, being a temporally-displaced material structure, just "adds more time" to the flight of the photon. If a photon were to pass through cosmic glass, an etheric/orgone structure, then it would exhibit faster-than-light motion, as such a structure would "add more space" for the same amount of clock time. This was never considered in the experiment, as those involved believe that the speed of light is the absolute maximum.
Every dogma has its day...