Michelson Morley To Einstein – From Science To Scientism

 

Michelson-Morely Experiment in 1887

The Michelson-Morley Experiment is taught in our schools as an integral part of Einstein’s theories on relativity and the non-existence of ether [i]. What is not so commonly taught is that Einstein was forced to invent the theory of relativity in response to the findings of experiments by Michelson, Morley and others.

albert michelson edward morley photo portrait Screenshot from 2017-05-03 15:41:32.png
Professor Albert Abraham Michelson (Nobel Prise winning Physicist)[1] & Professor Edward Williams Morley [2]
By developing an interferometer that could split a beam of light and send it in different directions (e.g. with the alleged spin of the earth and perpendicular to the spin), Michelson and Morley were able to determine the stationary nature of the earth.

Michelson_Morley_experiment.gif

The original purpose of this experiment was to prove the existence of ether. According to the theory, light should move through the ether at different speeds, depending on your relative movement through space. However, since the earth is not ‘moving through space’ [ii] the results were ‘nil’, and it was found the light was received from 16 different directions without any tell-tale interference fringe patterns.

interference fringe patterns Screenshot from 2017-05-03 21:59:36.png

This line of scientific enquiry was later repeated and refined by Nordmeyer (1903), Michelson-Gale (1925) and Professor Georges M. M. Sagnac [3] in 1913.

Sagnac determined an effect of light velocity that is still utilised today and forms the basis of operation for modern ring laser gyroscopes [4].

“Practical applications of the Sagnac Effect

The Sagnac Effect is employed in current technology. One use is in Inertial guidance systems. Ring interferometers are extremely sensitive to rotations, which need to be accounted for if an inertial guidance system is to return correct results.”

The experiment in 1887 consisted of the interferometer being mounted on a heavy stone block, carried by a wooden disc floating on a tank of mercury. Due to contested variables such as height above sea level, exposure to elements and temperature, the experiment was repeated at different locations and under different conditions by several scientists over several years, including R. J. Kennedy and K. K. Illingworth (1927) and it was even conducted in a Balloon at 2500 meters by Piccard and Stahel between 1926 – 28.

No trace of earth’s motion was ever found.

These experiments have been known about and ignored or misinterpreted for over a century now and they formed the catalyst for Einstein to spew forth his faulty theory of relativity [4.1] The theory of relativity entirely and conveniently ‘did away with’ the ether, and it remains a fundamental tenet of the Religion of Scientism (or “Trust Me!” Science) to this day.

“The failure to detect any influence of the earth’s motion on the velocity of light really formed the starting point of Einstein’s theory of relativity” – Encyclopedia Britannica

Search for alternative or even impartial interpretations for these world halting experiments today, and one will have to dig deep to find a paper that dares stray from the accepted, indoctrinated, dogmatic scriptures (text books) of ‘monkey-man science’.

It seems the further back in history one delves we find a far more open, honest and non-centrally controlled, critical thinking base to draw from [4.2], Gerrard Hickson is just one example

The Michelson-Morley experiment from Kings Dethroned by Gerrard Hickson (1922) chapter 11 (pictured below)[5]

“…the result showed that the earth did not move at all!

‘The Motion through the æther was NIL,’ …

But the world of astronomy has not accepted that result, for it continues to preach the old dogma ; it appears that they are willing to accept the decisions of physicists when it suits their case, but reject them when otherwise. And so they still maintain the fabulous theory that the earth is rushing through space…”

stationary earth kings dethroned p60-61 Screenshot from 2017-05-03 15:12:56.png

“Even then astronomers were determined to hold on to their ancient theories, and deny the facts which had been twice demonstrated by the best means known to modern physical science”

Stationary earth kings dethroned p62-63 end Screenshot from 2017-05-03 15:14:23.png

In 1986 The US Air Force repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment, and although the write-up in Nature Journal Volume 322 is deliberately convoluted, the existence of ether and the stationary nature of earth, was once again proven [6]

http://palgrave.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/pdf/322590b0.pdf

The article above is discussed in this video with Greg Braden (former Technical Operations Manager for Cisco Systems)[7]

“We may therefore say that the broad result of a series of experiments of Michelson-Morley type is that no motion of the earth through the ether can be detected by an influence on the velocity of light.” – Encyclopedia Britannica (1959)

The true nature of science has lost it’s way …. it’s no longer about observation, measurement, testability and repeatability. Science today has become a religion of faith, trust and belief in greater men than we. The masses now need to rely on the testimony of CERN, NASA [7.1], The United Nations [7.2] and other non-accountable sources for fundamental building blocks that make up our history, cosmology, nature and beginnings.

The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with others such as Airy and Rowbotham [8], remain unchallenged to this day. No one can show the curve or the spin of earth, however plenty can demonstrate using the scientific method, that earth is a stationary plane.

By John Savage (@SwearyG)

Further reading:

Was Einstein a shitbag?

Was Foucault a Fraud?

Resources For The Stationary Plane

The Religion Of Scientism: A Steaming Pile of Peer Review

The Great Gyroscope Bearing Friction Test (finally)

[UPDATED] Edited version of both gyroscope experiments (far more viewer friendly)

Since uploading the original 6hr gyroscope test to determine whether the earth was turning or not, I have been keen to run a test confirming the bearing in the gyroscope gimbal was sensitive enough for the job at hand. This sounded like an easy enough task, but after a number of attempts with bits of things I had lying around, I soon found out it was actually quite tricky. The experiment is a follow-up to the original 6hr gyroscope
experiment found here
or the much more palatable 3min summery here:
The purpose of the experiment was to test whether the friction in the main bearing of my gyroscope gimbal would be strong enough to overcome the proposed slow rotation of the Earth The initial experiment spanned 6 hrs and was designed to demonstrate the Earth rotation (ala Foucault 1852), however, as predicted the gyroscope didn't move at all. The YouTube comments suggested (some quite rationally & politely) that friction in the bearing was to blame for the non-movement, and invalidated the whole thing. (click the images to enlarge)
There was even a response from the manufacturing company owner 
http://imgur.com/HbwcsTc
The discussions carried on on Twitter too
https://twitter.com/swearyG/status/802999624705409024
About  year ago I contacted the owner of the manufacturing company that made 
the Precision Gyroscope and had some in-depth discussion on the topic.
Mr. Turner was convinced that his Precision Gyroscope was not capable of 
registering any movement of the earth, [wait for it] due to the amount of friction on the main bearing, and therefore it was not capable of registering 15 degrees
of movement every hour, or the rotation of the earth.
I maintained that it would be sensitive enough, due to the high 12,000 rpm 
being able to generate more than ample energy to overcome any bearing 
friction from an already precision tooled main bearing.
This was, of course, just my opinion.

Unfortunately Mr. Turner has not been back on twitter since we talked, but 
I will email him shortly to inform him of the results.
glenn turner gyroscope twitter Screenshot from 2017-01-08 223740.png 

So, I've been working on a viable way to #TESTIT

In order to test this opinion, I obtained a high torque 24 hour clock mechanism 
where the hour hand shaft rotated 360 degrees in 24 hours (same as the 
proposed spin of the earth)
I attached a platform to this hour hand shaft and placed the gyroscope 
on top of the platform
gyro friction 2 Screenshot from 2017-01-09 18-50-21.png

I could see two possible outcomes

If the gyroscope was not sensitive enough to register the hour hand turning, then the entire gyroscope and gimbal would have rotated with the 15 degree per hour platform.

Alternatively, should the gyroscope be sensitive enough for the job, then we would see the gimbal legs move with the platform, BUT the gyroscope would remain ‘rigid in space’ and pointing in the same direction it was when it was spun up.

[Unedited raw version)

As we will see from this initial 2 hour test, the gyroscope performed perfectly and remained rigid, thus demonstrating that it IS sensitive enough to register a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour, or 360 degrees per 24 hours., or the claimed rotation of the spinning ball earth

 

So What Does This All Mean

Though the video is mind numbingly boring, despite something actually moving this
time, It’s significance is literally world stopping

What this means is that the main criticism regarding the initial “Spin of the Earth Detection Experiment” has now been shown to be unwarranted. Meaning the 6hr non-rotation  demonstration and results still stand, unchallenged.

Via the Scientific Method –

EARTH IS STILL A STATIONARY PLANE

[PS. Please feel free to provide any counter evidence that refutes this, but I do mean actual evidence not just opinion from the peanut gallery]

The Great Moonlight Temperature Experiment

capture-full-moon-22-2-16

When I get challenged to show examples of how popular (so-called) science has misled us or deliberately lied to us, this simple experiment always comes to mind. The idea involves measuring the temperature of moonlight compared to moonshade, and is something anyone can test and draw their own conclusions from.

Our cherished text books and lab coated priests  tells us that Moon light is produced by the face of the Moon reflecting the rays of the sun. They also tell us that Moon light is marginally warm, but by such a minuscule amount that specialised (read: expensive & not available to everyone) equipment would be needed in order to measure this very slight temperature raise.

This is of course rubbish and simply repeating what they themselves were taught by their brainwashed teachers. In reality a couple of thermometers from a corner store with accuracy down to 0.1° Fahrenheit OR Celsius will do the job just fine.

Here are my rough instructions but, as is the beauty of physical science, anyone can improve, simplify, refine or redesign the experiment however they see fit

moon-light-moon-shade-twitter-instructions-method-temperature-difference-experiment-screenshot-from-2016-01-19-20_50_54

I was lucky enough, (11 months ago [wink wink]) to talk to the right person about this hot topic debate  on twitter. He’s a Senior Research Associate at Cardiff University that has much experience in relevant fields dealing with these measurements. After much debate he assured me that as soon as he has the time he will indeed be conducting his version of this potentially paradigm changing experiment

scientist-confirms-moon-temperature-test-is-controlled-and-good-screenshot-from-2015-11-06-18_40_17

cardiff-scientist-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-210629

 

It’s strange that I’m having trouble finding credible sources explaining how moonlight is so degraded by the time it reaches us that the ‘warmth’ is imperceptible. There were many examples when I looked 2 years ago. There’s several “ask a Scientist” forums that seem to deliberately skirt the issue by asking questions like “can someone please define moonshade?” and other nonsense. When pressed they may claim:

“Moon light will actually warm a surface, but in an amount that could not be measured by regular measuring device.”

One answer I found particularly innovative in it’s avoidance, was in response to the question

“Is is possible to start a fire using moonlight?”

I imagine most people would read this in the context of using a magnifying glass or parabolic mirror to concentrate the moonlight, but the reply made me chuckle:

“Moonlight has a spectral peak around 650nm (the sun peaks at around 550nm). Ordinary solar cells will work just fine to convert it into electricity. The power of moonlight is about 500,000 times less than that of sunlight, which for a solar constant of 1000W/m^2 leaves us with about 2mW/m^2. After accounting for optical losses and a typical solar cell efficiency of roughly 20%, we can probably hope to extract approx. 0.1mW with a fairly simple foil mirror of 1 m^2 surface area. Accumulated over the course of a whole night with a full moon, this leaves us with around 6h∗3600s/h∗0.1mW ≈ 2J of energy. That’s plenty of energy to ignite a fire using the right chemicals and a thin filament as a heater.”

Below is the frequently flaunted debunking article at Physics Central, critiquing the use of laser thermometers in moonlight experiments, which have become the weapon of choice for the curious experimenter. His points about the accuracy of laser thermometers may be justified, despite being sanctioned by chefs and ‘elf n’ Safety bods routinely everyday.

What bugs me about this self proclaimed science guru is that he couldn’t actually be bothered to do the experiment himself, much less offer a better scientific way to determine the results. It would seem, they just don’t want us looking at this

Moonshine and Lunacy

Friday, October 02, 2015 – Posted by ‘Positron’ on Physics Central
http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=1590436706491009951

As always the comment are where real ‘peer review’ is done (good and bad)

moonlight-experiment-comment-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221403

moonlight-comment-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221623

moonlight-comment-4-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-222021

moon-light-comment-3-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221825

moonlight-comment-2-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221648

So, despite debating this with all walks of life and being told by many that they will be doing the experiment themselves, none have ever come back with any results (but I hate to name names [wink wink]).

This is similar to the request I’ve made to draw the configuration of earth, moon and sun, showing a gibbous moon during the day or a crescent moon at night (Impossible moon phases).

So, please feel free to join the many curious minds out there, and design and conduct your own experiment to measure moonlight temperatures and let me know how you get on. The 5 times I have performed this over the years has shown me just how easy it’s been for the Establishment to obfuscate, deceive and out right lie to us about the natural world around us.

This video seems to be one of the most comprehensive test I’ve seen, though many others have now been removed from the net

what does twitter say? Well my oldest follower (that’s time, not age) on twitter tried it out for himself the other day – shame on him for thinking he can ‘do science’

Nice one alien!

alien-moon-light-temperature-test-screenshot-from-2016-11-18-011741

Others are a little more stuck in their ways, maybe because they haven’t/won’t #TESTIT

twitter-albert-moon-1-temp-screenshot-from-2016-05-29-224745

twitter-moon-is-warm-hot-shade-sun-temperature-test-screenshot-from-2016-01-18-00_40_12

twitter-albert-moon-2-temp-screenshot-from-2016-05-29-224457

twitter-albert-no-temp-change-moon-light-screenshot-from-2016-05-29-210000

 

Find me on Twitter @SwearyG