Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with Universal Vortical Singularity
In the epistemic theories of truth for the theory of justification, there are two major problems with the Michelson-Morley experiment. The first major problem is the scientific consensus on luminiferous aether does not exist is based on a null hypothesis with the null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and its extrapolation that free cosmic space is vacuum. The second major problem is with the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium.
"Many astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 600 km/s relative to the observed locations of other nearby galaxies. Another reference frame is provided by the Cosmic microwave background. This frame of reference indicates that The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s." - Excerpt from Wikipedia on motion (physics).
Watch a video clip on simulating Michelson-Morley experiment in aether wind, and also see an animated simulation of Michelson-Morley experiment that its aether wind speed can be varied.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan
The scientific consensus on luminiferous aether does not exist, was based on a null hypothesis with the null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Notwithstandingly, this conclusion is logically fallacious. It had only concluded that the quantitatively predicted aether wind was not found with the a priori assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium. Neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist.
Critically, a null hypothesis cannot assert positively with its hypothetical a priori posit, and therefore does not prove at all. The scientific consensus with the null hypothesis, thus is simply a formal fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise in a hasty generalization with its argument from ignorance.
As an analogy for the null hypothesis with null result, it would be similar to setting up an experiment to measure electrical power with the assumption that the electrical energy of a running system is operated with direct current. And after the direct current meter measured nothing, with the null result it concludes that there is no electrical current in the system that makes it work. This logical fallacy can also be rhetorically addressed as its evidence of absence, was concluded with its red herring fallacy in its ignoratio elenchi.
Any scientific fact must leave no room for any rational doubt.
In records it was others such as Oliver Heaviside (modified Maxwell's equations), Henri Poincaré (modified Lorentz transformation), Robert S. Shankland (reversed Dayton Miller's claim on existence of aether), Hermann Minkowski and partly David Hilbert (they instrumented the modification for the definition for spacetime of Einstein's theory of relativity) had concluded aether does not exist with moot reasoning (such as aether is not required in their models) in hatch jobs of unassailable mathematical constructs that do away the existence of aether in abstract mathematical realms.
All the conclusions for aether does not exist in the abstract mathematical constructs based on the absurd assumptions of transformable space or reified time, were deduced with self-fulfilling prophecies by self-reference; such artificial cognitive paradox fallacies were rendered by their philosophies of science that do not require aether to exist in their mathematical constructs. It is merely the dogma in the belief system of mathematical physics that asserts aether does not exist with argumentum ad populum.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” - Albert Einstein
The existence of aether can rationally explain the action at a distance is communicated through exchange of angular momentum in the atheric medium, and rationally this is inexplicable with conventional wisdom.
See UVS topics on "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation", and "UVS reviews the GR concepts of gravity" for the implications with the existence of aether would have on the fundamentals of modern physics.
“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein
These suggest Einstein's spacetime is the aether Einstein had propositioned, and it exists in a three spatial dimensions of space and a temporal dimension of time that are invariants. The refractive index of spacetime as quantitatively measured with high accuracy in proven experiments (the location of stars near the Sun had apparently warped during solar eclipses), is therefore the immutable proof for the existence of aether in Euclidean space; this is contrary to the abstract view of mathematical relativism that does not question its assumptions with the belief of transformable space or reified time.
“Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live.” - Albert Einstein
In 1920, although Einstein officially had asserted that aether exist in an open lecture, his peers had rhetorically refuted his rationalization and dismissed his claim that was against their belief in the mathematical relativism.
See in an external link for an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden by Albert Einstein on "Ether and the Theory of Relativity".
“... space without ether is unthinkable;” - Albert Einstein, on May 5th, 1920.
It was claimed that Dayton Miller through his interferometer experiment with positive results had asserted that aether exists and he had held this proposition throughout his life, but this is contrary to what was disseminated and printed in all the books of physics. In the claim it was alleged that it was Robert S. Shankland (the successor of Miller) who had claimed otherwise with Miller's experiment results after Miller was no longer around, hatched on the results selectively for it to portray that aether does not exist.
See a link on "The Dayton Miller's ether-drift experiments" for the details of the claim.
Vacuum energy was scientifically proven to exist in space even when devoid of matter; this asserts the existence of aether.
See UVS subtopics on "An all-pervasive inviscid medium that pervades the observable universe: aether ", "An immutable qualitative proof that aether exist" that elaborates on aether does exist, "Heliosphere", and "Four-dimensional spacetime continuum in a hypothetical construct for sound wave in a vector space void of medium" that illustrates a hatch job that could do away with the existence of air for sound wave to propagate in a hypothetical realm.
The experimental conclusion for the a priori proposition that postulates a static medium of luminiferous aether is proven to be inexistent, is not the proof for the a priori posit that luminiferous aether is a static medium.
The postulation that luminiferous aether is a static medium was merely an assumption.
With the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium, one could regressively maintain a fallacious self-referential cognitive paradox with strawman argument to assert that aether was scientifically proven to be nonexistence with its bigotry argument from authority. This is merely a formal fallacy of affirming the consequent in the subjective reality of its hypothetical construct.
See UVS topics on "Unisonal evolution mechanism" that illustrates on how aether vortical motion forms nested toroidal structure and begets everything through its wake, and "Types of perpetual motion machine" for the illustrations of perpetual motion manifested in nature.
The cyclonic motion of the polar vortex pair on Earth is an empirical evidence that the nested polar vortices are impelled by aether vortical motion.
If the Earth drags in a medium of static aether, there would be problems with resistance that this would drag the movement of Earth in the aetheric medium, but if aether is vortically encapsulated on Earth in an spheroidal pushed-in manner, then the problem of its resistance to movement of celestial objects is resolved.
See a UVS topic on "Jet streams" that elaborates on the momentum culmination of vortical forces.
“In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” - Richard Fenyman
To detect the vortical aether-drift with the assumption that luminiferous aether is vortically entrained to a celestial spheroid in the pushed-in manner, it requires a more sensitive interferometer that is designed and set up for such detections. The Dayton Miller's ether-drift experiments, although was officially reported as also had obtained negative (null) results with the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium, on the other hand, it was otherwise claimed that it had in fact obtained consistence positive results of an aether-drift with the proposition that luminiferous aether is entrained to the rotation of Earth. The concept for this aether-drift in an analogy is liked a moving train would cause air around it to be drifted with its movement. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, there is an irresolvable anomaly with this aether-drift proposition that it would drag the motion of any celestial object.
From the UVS perspective, light could not escape the gravitational force of a black hole infers the carriers of light wave are matters that have mass and they could be physically interacted. Although light wave propagating in the medium of lumineferous aether is weightless like sound waves, the carriers of light at the black hole are pushed-in toward the black hole faster than light wave could propagate away from the black hole; hence light could not escape. One can do a thought experiment to visualize air is being sucked into an air vent at supersonic speed for conceptual observation of any sound created inside the air vent to visualize that this sound wave would not be able to escape; in analogy this could rationally explains how light is trapped in a black hole that was inexplicable with conventional wisdom.
A further reason why Newton rejected light as waves in a medium was because such a medium would have to extend everywhere in space, and would thereby "disturb and retard the Motions of those great Bodies" (the planets and comets) and thus "as it [light's medium] is of no use, and hinders the Operation of Nature, and makes her languish, so there is no evidence for its Existence, and therefore it ought to be rejected." - Excerpt from wikipedia on "Luminiferous aether".
UVS postulates that luminiferous aether vortically drifts in entrainment on every celestial object in the observable universe with vortical motion in a shperoidal pushed-in manner. The concept for this proposition can be thought of as the spheroidally confined aetheric medium is in vortical motion, and it pushes a drifting celestial object within it by driving and entraining it with the momentum in vortical motion flow of aether; this could rationally explain the aether drag anomaly.
See a UVS topic on "The orbit of natural satellite" that elaborates on how all the Solar System objects are revolving around the Sun in vortical motion.
Do a thought experiment to visualize a bead suspended in water is being pushed in a vortical flow with perpetual motion and in a steady state it spins around its axis and in the medium it is pushed in the flow to revolve vortically around a barycenter; it would not loose its energy as long as the external driving force is persistent. This thought experiment could illustrate the causality for the motion of a planet or star and how it is actually moving in space; it is being pushed in vortical motion to revolve around its barycenter in helical path through space but in a cognitive paradox from its frame of reference it would appear to be orbiting. Be awakened on this and one would be able to intuitively visualize the rest on how all celestial objects move through space in the macrocosms as well as how this works for all virtual particles and subatomic particles in the microcosms.
It is an immutable fact that all Solar System objects including the Sun are moving in helical paths through space while revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, and this could be visualized from an external reference frame in their transcendental perspectives. For the resolution of this issue one have to let go the Copernican heliocentrism and its improved mathematical constructs for the model of satellite orbital motions, which was disseminated and printed on all the school books for astronomy; this is merely a localized perception with incomplete view. And in its negation, it would not reflect the actual celestial mechanics of planetary motion.
See a link on "The Universal Helicola" that presents an impeccable illustration for spiral motion of Earth's path in space on page 269 in figure 13.1, it was elaborated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively. See also video clips on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" that illustrates with an external perception for the helical motion of Earth in a moving Sun and "The solar system's motion thru space". Note: These illustrations would be qualitatively more accurate if they show the barycenter motion of a moving Sun that propagates in a composite helical path around the Galactic Center.
By confining within the Kepler's laws of planetary motio on argumentative ground that it was based on scientifically proven fact, and in its mathematical construct these laws have had achieved scientific consensus with further support from Newton's laws, taking it as it was propositioned, and therefore would not seek further inquiry for its transcendental perspective in its reference frame. In its artificial cognitive paradox, one could maintain its mathematically deduced conclusions are empirically valid; this is a negated perception of the natural phenomenon with its putative laws of physics that was perceived in the subjective reality of its model with a static Sun.
See a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in Copernican heliocentrism" for more insights.
This is how the putative laws of physics could lie with the deductive inference in the mathematical construct for its empirical observation when it gets to reality; in its concept from its localized perception it negates the reality. And in its delusion, it results in its illusion of knowledge with its a posteriori deductive proof.
See a UVS topic on "The paradoxical effect of nature" that elaborates on the causality of delusive circumstances in nature and its resolving power for the cognitive paradoxes of enigmatic natural phenomena.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman
“Any fundamental laws of Nature are merely phenomenological generalizations.” - Nancy Cartwright's distinction
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” - Galileo Galilei
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” - Albert Einstein
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” - Galileo Galilei
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
~ With special thanks to Graham Burnett for his posting on the depicted image of heliosphere and a NASA news report on: "Voyager Squashes View of Solar System", this is a scientific evidence that Solar System is encapsulated in a nested plasmatic bubble filled with plasma.
~ With special thanks to Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D. for his invaluable inputs and his website on "The Dayton Miller's ether-drift experiments".
Note: The vortical paths in helical spiral motion of planets were independently visualized with the UVS model without any priori reference, other similar concepts were later found through the Internet on further inquiry, such as "Spiral Forms in Space" as illustrated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich (MD) in the web site of Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D., "Universal Helicola" as illustrated by Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg and "The solar system's motion thru space"as illustrated by Nassim Haramein. Nonetheless, among these similar illustrations, UVS uniquely illustrated with scientific evidence for how the Sun and its planets were vortically formed, why they propagate in spiral motions through space and how they were vortically impelled to move in spiral motion.
Disclaimers: The treatise of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS) in its epistemological paradigm shift, is fundamentally unconventional. Its hypotheses based on a generally unheard-of UVS model, are bounded to have shortcomings, loose ends, and errors. Many details and assumptions in its propositions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated, or verified. Its implicit explanations are for casual understanding of the UVS topics presented in the UVS worldview, so if any term or statement is offensive in any manner or from whatsoever perspectives, is most regretted. Links to other sites do not imply endorsement of their contents; apply appropriate discretion whenever necessary. For whatsoever reasons, at times the viewing for some of its contents could helplessly experience text corruptions, disorganized content layouts, missing images, failed animations, and some external links simply had ceased to exist.
Viewing tips: Despite the presentations of the UVS web pages has went through much accommodation for their viewings on smart phones, they are not very friendly to smaller low resolution mobile devices. It is therefore recommended to access and view the UVS contents with a system device that at least has a larger high definition screen, such as a larger smart phones, an android tablet, or an iPad. For the best experiences, use a MS Windows based PC or computer system to browse with Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox that is Java enabled for its interactive applets. (Such as Java Applet of Moiré pattern, JPL Small-Body Database Browser, and Planet Finder.)
Copyright information: This UVS web site is for non-profit purposes and not for commercial use. Wherever possible, direct credits to the origins of the works or images were provided, be it on fair dealings, with explicit permission from their owners, or the materials were believed to be from the public domain.