On the site are presented:
1) Analyses of all “unexpected” and “inexplicable” results of the most famous experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light, including the analysis of the “Michelson-Morley experiment” which proves that the inappropriate conceptual design of Michelson’s interferometer is actually the primary cause for the delusion that “the speed of light is the same for all inertial frames of reference”, which is the core of the special relativity;
2) Analysis of "Analysis of the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”;
3) The "New Model of the Uncertainty of the Universe" (THE FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE), which explains the delusion that the "speed of light in vacuum" is constant for the whole Universe...
3) Revealing the essence of all the so-called “fundamental tests” that supposedly prove the truth of the special theory of relativity.
Let's discuss with SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS every detail of the evidence presented on this site!
Isn't it time to break with delusions and illusions?
Ramon Carbó-Dorca
Dear Professor Ramon Carbó-Dorca,
What do you think - why do such clever people not want to accept the truth?
This is very important for me...
Not everyone is courageous enough to start revising what seems a well-founded scientific structure. It seems you are courageous enough to do it. That's why I said good luck!
To the 1st:
The Michelson-Morley(MM) experiment DID measure a significant value - consult their original paper. The issue is the value was much smaller than expected and in a different direction than than expected. The direction rejected the ``luminiferous ether'' model. So, the site fails to explain their results, also.
SR is based on Maxwell's equations which have been rejected by experiment:
Article Two different types of magnetic field
Preprint Replacing Special Relativity
John Hodge , Ramon Carbó-Dorca , Stephan Gift
Dear John,
The Michelson experiment measured in all directions a value consistent with measurement error (of the experiment) “The small displacements -0.004 and -0.015 are simply errors of experiment.” (Michelson, 1881), also “It seems fair to conclude that if there is any displacement due to the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether, this cannot be much greater than 0.01 of the distance between the fringes.” (Michelson & Morley, 1887). The "Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment" actually experimentally proves that a difference is registered depending on the directions, according to the direction of rotation of the Earth around its axis, and depending on the latitude.
So it is good to read carefully not only their published article, not only ( https: //physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/michelson-gale-pearson-experiment/ ), but also the analysis of the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” - see ( https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/special-theory-of-relativity-blunder/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies-analysis/ ), where it is clearly seen that SR is not based on Maxwell's equations, but on the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of the light. This is clearly shown in this analysis - of where and how the postulate has been applied.
So it is good to read and judge for yourself and not to rely on someone else's opinions which are in most cases leading. In this aspect, read the truth about the so-called fundamental tests of special relativity - a brilliant example of a completely fabricated test is the Hafele-Keating test! If you read the analysis of this experiment, you will surely be amused not only by the naivety of Hafele and Keating: https://physics.bg/home/fundamental-tests-of-special-relativity/fully-fabricated-tests/.
Please, I appeal again for SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS about the evidence presented, not based on repeated clichés...
Best Regards,
Gocho
I read their original paper. The other references are ``someone else's opinions''.
Then analyze their DATA. It's you who is repeating cliches.
see
Article STOE explaination for the "ether wind"
As to SR:
Preprint Replacing Special Relativity
Maxwell's equations are incomplete because they fail to account for open circuits.
John Hodge
Dear John,
Please, I appeal again for SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS against the evidence presented. Everyone sees that you repeat clichés, and you cannot provide SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS against the evidence presented... Please, provide exactly where you do not agree with the presented proofs uploaded on the site https://physics.bg!
Gocho Sharlanov
My last posts related data/observations to models. So, your view is that this is NOT science. You have a very peculiar view of science.
- Badges
- Science method