5-Consequences

5.1 Einstein’s flawed “Relativity of Simultaneity” thought experiment paradigm

Regarding my critique on the contemporary “Relativity of Simultaneity” paradigm, as introduced in science by Einstein through his “Train, embankment, and lightning flashes” thought experiment, involving an observer in a moving train carriage and and observer on the train station platform,  (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity_(1931)/Section_9) I uploaded already in 2010 my critique as a YouTube video (without audio)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvx945SP-RM and in 2015 again as a YouTube video (including audio):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex0bATIFg3M. Simultaneity of events : by definition “simultaneous” means that the events occur at the very same time instant.

Simultaneity of events, occurring in real space, of course exists. In fact simply everything that is happening at this very time instant in whatever part of real space (universe) is happening simultaneous. Therefore, “simultaneity” itself is not an issue but it becomes an issue when an observer, present in a specific location in real space, needs to decide on the simultaneity of two events (which occurred in two other locations in real space) on the basis of the signal information that is arriving at the location of the observer and on the basis of the time of arrival of that signal information. Signal information carriers could moreover be of different types: e.g. light quanta (photons) or sound waves. An observer uses that event signal information to make a decision about simultaneity but the observer of course already is aware of the fact that all information arriving at her/his location in real space is information from the past. Indeed, no information carrier in our universe has an infinitely high velocity, including photons.

Briefly first the reasoning of Einstein in his “Train, embankment, and lightning flashes” thought experiment. His thought experiment is schematically illustrated in Figure 34. Einstein introduced a moving train carriage and an observer Obs2, who is thus moving along with the train carriage. There is an observer Obs1 “at rest” in the location M, which is on the train station platform, along the railway track. There is a location A on the train track to the left of location M and there is a location B on the train track tot the right of M.  The location M is in the perfect midpoint between location A and location B. Einstein then considers a lightening stroke LSA occurring in location A at the time instant t1 and another lightening stroke LSB occurring in location B, also at the time instant t1. Both lightening strokes LSA and LSB occur therefore simultaneous at the time instant t1. Obs2 passes location M exactly at the time instant t1. Einstein then asks the question: “Will Obs1 and Obs2 both observe the lightening strokes LSA and LSB simultaneously?“.

Einstein states: “When we say that the two light flashes, occurring in A and B, are simultaneous with respect to Obs1, we mean that the flashes of light, emitted at the places A and B, meet each other at the midpoint M. Obs1 then confirms the simultaneity.”

Einstein then states: “Obs2 however travels towards the flash of light coming from B, but ahead of the flash of light coming from A.”

Einstein continues: “Obs2, who takes the train carriage as the reference frame, must therefore come to the conclusion that the light flash in B took place earlier than the light flash in A.”

Einstein concludes: “That is the relativity of simultaneity. Every reference frame has its own particular time.”

Einstein’s conclusion has become a CS paradigm, still being defended by the CPBDs but nevertheless the “Relativity of Simultaneity” is a flawed paradigm. A CS paradigm that indeed can easily be falsified (see further).

According to Einstein’s reasoning there is thus a major problem regarding the decision by Obs1 and Obs2 about the yes-or-no simultaneity of the two light flashes.  Einstein however made a fundamental error as a result of his incomplete time analysis of all the events. Such becomes very clear when I introduce photons here in my further analysis to replace the vagueness, resulting from Einstein’s “lightning strokes” in his thought experiment. In addition, Einstein could of course not know at that time about my RVMD (Real Velocity Measuring Device) concept that allows to measure the real velocity vector of a reference frame, moving in real space, as explained in section 4.1. (note: my RVMD concept was revealed for the first time in 2006 in my USPTO patent text). The two observers Obs1 and Obs2 are then perfectly able to measure the real velocity vector of their reference frame in real space. The important and crucial fact of a RVMD is implemented further in a more detailed analysis of Einstein’s Relativity of Simultaneity paradigm, then resulting in the falsification of that “Relativity of Simultaneity” paradigm.

For CPBDs (Contemporary Paradigm Believers and Defenders), Einstein’s thought experiment seems to be mind boggling since I assume that the CPBDs are puzzled with their perception of Obs2 in the train carriage:

1. 1. to be present in location M
   2. to observe in that location M the lightning stroke LSB (coming from B) at at time instant earlier, than the time instant of observing in that location M the lightning stroke LSA (coming from A)

In that respect an extremely important aspect that is not mentioned by Einstein in his thought experiment is that the train carriage (thus Obs2) is of course not present at all in location M when meeting the lightning stroke LSB coming from B. The train carriage and Obs2 of course have simply traveled towards a location C to the right of location M during the time travel interval of LSB to that meeting location C of Obs2 and LSB. LSB indeed needs a specific traveling time after being emitted in location B in order to travel towards location C in order to meet Obs2 in that location C. 

In a complete analogous way LSA needs a specific travelling time from location A to meet Obs2 in a meeting location D (that certainly differs from the location M and also from the location C). That location D is evidently to the right of location M and evidently also to the right of location C.

The analysis of Einstein’s thought experiment can in fact be reduced to a high school level problem solving of a “meeting problem” with the following simple determinations/measurements of time instants and locations by Obs1 and Obs2, in order to then decide upon the yes-or-no simultaneity problem of the LSA and LSB events in respectively the locations A and B:

• in what location will Obs2 observe (meet) the lightning stroke LSB coming from B and at what time instant t2? Evidently that observation of LSB by Obs2 will not be in location M, thus in a location C to the right of M. Obs2 is of course able to determine/measure that location C and the time instant t2.
• Obs1 will of course observe both lightning strokes LSA and LSB at the same time instant t3 in location M and evidently t3>t2. Obs1 thus simply measures that time instant t3 during the Obs1 simultaneous observation of LSA and LSB arriving in location M. Obs1 indeed has no problem to then decide that LSA and LSB occurred simultaneous in the past in locations A and B. Indeed: Obs1 knows the velocity of the LSA and LSB signals and knows also that AM=MB. Since Obs1 measured the time instant t3 it is very simple for Obs1 to back calculate from AM and MB the time instant t1 that LSA and LSB were emitted. Obs1 thus can easily determine that both events occurred in the past at the time instant t1. Obs1 thus then easily concludes that LSA and LSB indeed happened simultaneous in location A and B at the time instant t1.
• in what location will Obs2 observe (meet) the lightning stroke LSA coming from A and at what time instant t4? Evidently that observation of LSA by Obs2 will not be in location M, thus in a location D to the right of M and even to the right of C. Evidently t4>t3>t2. Obs2 is of course also able to determine/measure that location D and the time instant t4.

When all these determinations/measurements of locations C, D and time instants t2, t3, t4 are done by Obs1 and Obs2 they have both sufficient information to back-calculate that LSA was emitted at the time instant t1 in location A and that LSB was also emitted at that time instant t1 in location B. That of course falsifies Einstein’s “Relativity of Simultaneity” paradigm. The simultaneity problem is simply non-existent, thus fictional and artificial, in the case that both observers Obs1 and Obs2 are able to back calculate the time instant in the past when the two events happened in their locations A and B. It is not at all so that two observers who are in different locations in real space and who observe two events at different time instants can not determine the time instants in the past when those events occurred in real space in order to decide on the yes-or-no simultaneity of the occurrence of both events in the past.

Einstein seems to have overlooked the importance of such straightforward “meeting problem” analysis. Light has not an infinitely high velocity but clearly a finite velocity. Einstein’s thought experiment therefore of course needs to be analyzed in more detail. Moreover, it is crucial that in such analysis also my RVMD (revealed in my USPTO patent text in 2006) can be introduced to determine the real velocity vectors linked to Obs1 and Obs2. Moreover, after more than 15 years (2006-2023) of my up-hill battle against numerous  and tenacious CPBDs, who all showed during that period 2006-2023 (and still show) an irrational closed state of mind, I was finally able to circumvent the CPBDs blocking actions, regarding my numerous dissemination attempts of my important findings in scientific journals, by those CPBDs. I succeeded in the end in publishing a series of three interlinked Elsevier publications: see the menu “My Publications” and the sub-menus “Elsevier_Optik_1”, “Elsevier_Optik_2” and “Elsevier_ResultsInOptics_1”. The latter publication is Etienne Brauns, On the concept and potential applications of a photons based device, measuring the velocity vector of an object, moving at high speed in space, Results in Optics 10 (2023) 100349, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rio.2023.100349.

No CPBD thus can no longer question and block here my irrefutable RVMD concept, nor the implementation of the RVMD concept in my further analysis below. Moreover, none of the large number of CPBDs that I encountered and who all blocked me was capable in the period 2006-2023 of countering my findings and views. All those CPBDs simply used the very same strategy of hiding in silence in order to silence things to death. There is seemingly no open state of mind of CPBDs: they are all only interested in their CS paradigms which they consider to be “written in stone” and irrefutable. Those CPBDs are even unaware of the important work of Thomas Kuhn regarding paradigms, proving that the evolution path of science during the history of science is littered with flawed paradigms and thus abandoned paradigms. So be it for 2006 – December 2023 but the CPBDs will in the end have to give in and finally admit at some moment that many CS paradigms, based on light, are totally flawed. As I have proven since 2006 and recently officially in my irrefutable Elsevier publications.

I also wrote/write my book with the title “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science.” since 2006 of over 450 pages. I indicated of course intentionally in 2006 in my title of my book  “a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science.” since I anticipated at that moment somehow the tenacious resistance of the CPBDs. However I did not anticipate in 2006 that such totally irrational resistance of the CPBDs would last for more than 15 years and is still continuing (2006 – December 2023). Thomas Kuhn was extremely to the point, it seems, regarding his views in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” explaining also the CPBDs irrational (irrational from the perspective of an expected dealing with objective and open minded scientific researchers, which was and is clearly not the case) human factors (state of mind) involved in the process of paradigm shifts.    

I will introduce photons in my analysis as to replace Einstein’s lightning strokes, the latter which can cause vagueness in an analysis. Photons make the analysis much easier and straightforward. The photon which is emitted at time instant t1 from the location A into the direction of the location M is here indicated as LPA (Light Photon A). The photon which is emitted at time instant t1 from the location B into the direction of the location M is here indicated as LPB (Light Photon B).

In the required analysis of the meeting locations and meeting time instants the crucial numerical data to know or to measure are:

1. 1. the abscissa x-value of the locations of A and B. Since M is in the midpoint of A and B the x-value of the location M is of course clear 
   2. the abscissa x-value of the location C of Obs2 at the time instant t2, corresponding to the x-value of the meeting location C of LPB at that time instant t2
   3. the time instant t3, corresponding to the meeting location M of LPA and LPB
   4. the abscissa x-value of the location D of Obs2 at the time instant t4, corresponding to the x-value of the meeting location D of LPA at that time instant t4
   5. the scalar values of the real velocity vectors of Obs1 and Obs2 (thus in fact the real velocity vector of the reference frames of Obs1 and Obs2) being measured by Obs1 through a RVMD (at the disposition of Obs1) and measured by Obs2 through a RVMD (at the disposition of Obs2).
   6. the scalar values of the real velocity vectors at the time instant t1 of the two photon sources in respectively location A and B which have emitted the two photons LPA and LPB
   7. the velocity of LPA and LPB in real space is assumed in this analysis to be 300 000 000 meters per second.

Obviously, with respect to the measurement of t2, t3 and t4 an accurate time measurement system is also needed. Therefore a photon clock is thus introduced here as well. The extremely schematically Figure 18B shows a set-up which in principle allows for the function of a photon clock. A photon source emits photons at a specific frequency in the perfect perpendicular direction towards the plane of a perfect planar mirror. The reflected photons are reflected by the mirror and counted on arrival by a semi-transparant sensor (through appropriate additional photon pulse counting electronics and software). 

Such set-up can function as an accurate clock. An observer who is moving at a constant speed horizontally in the x-direction along with the real (absolute) velocity measuring device can read this clock. It is of course clear that this photon clock concept is completely different from the totally flawed CS “light clock”: see again Figure 5 at this website with respect to the totally wrong graphical representation of photon phenomena as claimed by CS. Please dismiss such totally wrong CS representations (as in Figure 5) of the totally flawed CS “light clock” paradigm being based on the totally flawed simplistic and primitive CS ray-of-light paradigm.

Einstein’s thought experiment in Figure 34 is moreover based on his assumption of a one dimension x direction case. I am thus also allowed in my further analysis to assume an analogous one dimension x direction case. However, instead of considering Einstein’s “train carriage” traveler Obs2, moving at a restricted and low velocity of a train on a train track and having also restricted “small” distances AM and MB on the train track, I will expand Einstein’s thought experiment towards much higher velocities of Obs2 and much higher distance values for AM and MB. Such is needed for numerical calculations reasons in order to be able to showcase to the reader sufficiently significant numerical effects with respect to the t2, t3 and t4 values. When based on Einstein’s train carriage thought experiment, the extremely small differences between the calculated t2, t3 and t4 values, resulting from the small distances AM and MB and from the low train velocity, could be perfectly calculated as well, but would have much less illustrative meaning and would even rather be unclear/vague/misty for a reader. However and in principle, the conclusion would be the very same of course, nonetheless the extremely small numeric differences between the t2, t3 and t4 values in an Einstein’s train carriage based case. 

Consider therefore thus the “expanded” thought experiment in Figure 19B. Einstein’s train track on Earth is now replaced by a perfectly linear and very long “track” AB in real space.  The AB track length is assumed to be 1800 000 000 meters; thus AM = MB = 900 000 000 meters. Since it is also assumed here that the velocity of a photon in real space is 300 000 000 meters per second it is also clear that AM = MB = 3 light seconds. In location A there is a photon source, in addition equipped with a three dimensional RVMD A (Figure 13). Also in location B there is a photon source, being equipped with a three dimensional RVMD B. The RVMD A measures all three signal shifts to be zero, thereby indicating that the photon source in location A is in perfect rest in real space. The RVMD B also measures all three signal shifts to be zero, thereby indicating that the photon source in location B is also in perfect rest in real space. Exactly in the midpoint M of the linear track between A and B there is an observer Obs1 (floating in real space as an astronaut) having a three dimensional RVMD M.  The RVMD M measures all three signal shifts to be zero, thereby indicating that Obs1 in location M is in perfect rest in real space. The photon source in location A is pointed exactly to location M. Also the photon source in location B points exactly to location M. A space ship is travelling along the track AB (as illustrated very schematically in Figure 19B).

So let’s now do the calculations with respect to the thought experiment, as presented in Figure 19B.

The observer Obs2 on board of the space ship has a RVMD and is thus able to measure the real velocity of the space ship in the x-direction in this one-direction based thought experiment. The observer Obs1 who is located in M along the track has also a RVMD, that indicates a zero real velocity in the x-direction, thus that Obs1 is at perfect rest in real space. The distance d_AM from point A to M (d_BM between B and M) is arbitrarily chosen here to be 3 light seconds. The constant real velocity of the ship is arbitrarily chosen here to be 700 000 meters per second. The photon source LPA in location A and the photon source LPB in location B emit at exactly the same time instant t1=0 each a photon towards M (LPA from A to M and LPB from B to M). The space ship arrives exactly at t1=0 at location M, thus at the same time instant t1=0 that the photons LPA and LPB were emitted, but evidently one should keep in mind that the space ship has a velocity of 700 000 meters per second in the x-direction.

Since Obs1 is at perfect rest in M, the photons LPA and LPB will of course arrive in M at exactly the same time instant t3 = 3 seconds. Obs1 observes that arrival of LPA and LPB in M and measures that time t3 = 3 seconds with a photon clock which is at the disposition of Obs1. It is thus very easy for Obs to back-calculate from the known distance values AM and BM and from the measured time t3 that LPA and LPB were emitted at the very same time instant t1=0, thus that LPA and LPB were simultaneous events. Regarding Obs1: things are thus very clear and easy to understand. 

With respect to Obs2 things are a little bit more complicated but still not that difficult to handle. So, let’s determine now the time instants t2 and t4 and the meeting locations, thus when and where Obs2 (the space ship) is meeting/observing the photons LPA and LPB.  When therefore:

– defining for the x-axis its origin as x=0 in M and the x-axis direction as directed towards B
– defining the location of the space ship as x_Ship
– defining the location of the photons LPA and LPB as x_LPA and x_LPB
– Δt_Ship = travelling time of the space ship from position M (x = 0)
– Δt_LPB = travelling time of the photon LPB
– Δt_LPA = travelling time of the photon LPA
– assuming the speed of a photon to be 300 000 000 meters per second in real space

Meeting of Obs2 (space ship) and photon LPB

Since a RVMD is available, Obs2 is able to measure the ship’s real velocity v_Ship and thus: 

x_Ship = v_Ship . Δt_Ship   (5.1) 

One also knows that the location of LPB after a travelling time Δt_LPB corresponds to:

x_LPB = d_MB – c . Δt_LPB   (5.2) 

The space ship and LPB obviously meet when x_LPB = x_Ship : 

 x_LPB = d_MB – c . Δt_LPB  =  x_Ship = v_Ship . Δt_Ship    (5.3)

But it is also true of course that at the moment that they meet that Δt_LPB= Δt_Ship. As a result Δt_LPB can be substituted by Δt_Ship :

v_Ship . Δt_Ship  =   d_MB – c . Δt_Ship  (5.4) 

Thus from equation (5.4) also :

Δt_Ship  =  d_MB / (v_Ship + c ) = 900000000 / (700000 + 300000000) = 2.9930162953109 sec   (5.5) 

So one notices that Obs2 will observe LPB at the time instant t2 = 2.9930162953109 sec at the location C corresponding to x_Ship= 2095111.407 m.

Obs2 thus observes LPB about 0.00698 sec earlier than Obs1: Obs2 observes LPB at the time instant t2 = 2.9930162953109 sec at the location C to the right of location M  (thus not in location M) while Obs1 will observe LPB later at the time instant t3 = 3 sec in location M.

As a check:

• LPB has traveled during that time a distance 300000000 m/sec x 2.9930162953109  sec = 897904888.59327 m from location B 
• LPB thus arrives at the location C corresponding to x_LPB =900000000 m – 897904888.59327 m = 2095111.407 m

which of course corresponds to the very same location C of the space ship at that time instant t2 when meeting LPB.

The space ship thus advanced to the location C, to the right of M, thus a seemingly “small” distance of 2095111.407 m when compared to BM = 900 000 000 meters and thus being merely 0.2328 % of that distance between M and B but it is clearly irrevocable that the location C differs completely from the location M. Such erases any vagueness with respect to Einstein’s train carriage thought experiment in the case that CPBDs would be staring at Einstein’s train carriage thought experiment, while trying to grasp the meaning of it. It must be very clear now to those CPBDs that the simple “meeting problem situation” can indeed be precisely calculated in a straightforward way.  Let’s then finish the calculations.

Meeting of Obs2 (space ship) and photon LPA

At the time instant t2 that LPB meets the space ship, LPA of course still needs to catch up with the space ship. LPA even did not arrive at the location M yet at the time instant t2. Indeed, LBA and LPB require an additional 0.0069837046891 sec to continue their travel to location M in order to be observed by Obs1 (at t=3 sec LPA and LPB arrive at M). Therefore LPA obviously needs over 3 sec to catch the travelling space ship, already travelling to the right of location M.

The travelling time and location of the meeting of LPA and the space ship can be obtained from analogous equations:

x_LPA = c . Δt_LPA – d_AM   (5.6) 

The space ship and LPA meet when x_LPA=x_Ship :

 x_Ship = v_Ship . Δt_Ship   = x_LPA = c . Δt_LPA – d_AM   (5.7) 

It is also true that they meet at a same moment Δt_LPA= ΔtShip. As a result :

 v_Ship . Δt_Ship   =  c . Δt_Ship   –  d_AM   (5.8) 

Thus from equation (5.8):

Δt_Ship   =  d_AM  / ( c – v_Ship ) = 900000000 / (300000000 – 700000) = 3.0070163715336  sec      (5.9) 

So one notices that Obs2 will only observe LPA at the time instant t4 = 3.0070163715336  sec at the location D, corresponding to  x_Ship= 2104911.460 m, thus about 0.007016 sec later than Obs1.

As a check:

• LPA traveled during that time a distance of 300000000 m/sec x 3.0070163715336 sec = 902104911.46008 m from location A
• LPA thus arrives at the location D corresponding to x_LPB =900000000 m – 902104911.46008 m = 2104911.460 m

which of course corresponds to the very same location D of the space ship at that time instant t4 when meeting LPA.

The space ship thus advanced further to the location D, to the right of location M, the “small” distance of 2104911.460 m which is merely 0.2339 % of the distance between M and B, so a little bit further to the right of M when compared to location C, corresponding to the observation at the time instant t2 of LPB by Obs2. 

Since Obs2 now clearly has all the extra needed information:

• the real velocity of the space ship, measured by the RVMD
• the precise time instants t2=2.9930162953109 sec and  t4=3.0070163715336  sec, measured by Obs2 by using the photon clock on board

It is thus now evident that Obs2 is able to back-calculate the time instants of emissions of the photons LPA and LPB, respectively at the locations A and B. The result of that calculation is obvious: Obs2 can easily calculate that photon LPA was emitted at the location A  at the time instant t1=0 sec and that photon LPB was emitted at location B at precisely the same time instant t1=0 sec. So Obs2 is thus also perfectly capable to conclude that photon LPA and photon LPB were emitted at the very same time instance t1=0 sec, thus that the emission events of LPA and LPB indeed were simultaneous.

It should therefore now also be clear for the CPBDs that, from the result of my analysis, Einstein’s “Relativity of Simultaneity” train carriage thought experiment paradigm is falsified.  There is no “Relativity of Simultaneity” issue at all regarding Einstein’s train carriage thought experiment. In Einstein’s train carriage thought experiment, the aspect of location, time and velocity is extremely vague to many CPBDs, when staring at the graphical representation of Einstein’s train carriage thought experiment, as a result of their perception of the (extremely high) speed of light and the relative “negligible” small velocity of the train. That vagueness is now completely removed by my analysis.

5.2 The flawed Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm

5.2.1 The Michelson and Morley publication, Luminiferous Ether and real space

Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley published their experimental findings with the title “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether” in November 1887 in the American Journal of Science, volume XXXVI. The term “lumini-ferous” means “light carrying”.

Their paper can be downloaded from the internet: https://history.aip.org/exhibits/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf

or through  https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/MichelsonAndMorleyPaper1887.pdf

At that time the very peculiar hypothesis that space (vacuum) contained some kind of fluid(um) (the “ether”) was under investigation.

Michelson and Morley wrote in their paper: 

“On the undulatory theory, according to Fresnel, first the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media, in which secondly, it is supposed to move with a velocity less than the velocity of the medium in the ratio (n²-1)/n² where n is the index of refraction. These two hypotheses give a complete and satisfactory explanation of aberration. The second hypothesis, notwithstanding its seeming improbability, must be considered as fully proved, first, by the celebrated experiment of Fizeau, and secondly, by the ample confirmation of our own work. The experimental trial of the first hypothesis forms the subject of the present paper. If the earth were a transparent body, it might perhaps be conceded, in view of the experiments just cited, that the intermolecular ether was at rest in space, notwithstanding the motion of the earth in its orbit ; but we have no right to extend the conclusion from these experiments to opaque bodies. But there can be hardly be question that the ether can and does pass through metals. Lorentz cites the illustration of a metallic barometer tube. When the tube is inclined the ether in the space above the mercury is certainly forced out, for it is incompressible. But again we have no right to assume that it makes this escape with perfect freedom, and if there be any resistance, however slight, we certainly could not assume an opaque body such as the whole earth to offer free passage through its entire mass. But as Lorentz aptly remarks : “quoi qu’il en soit , en fera bien, a mon avis, de ne pas se laisser guider dans une question aussi importante, par de considérations sur le degré de probabilité ou de simplicité de l’une ou de l’autre hypothèse, mais de s’adresser a l’expérience pour apprendre a connaitre l’état, de repos ou de mouvement, dans lequel se trouve l’éther à la surface terrestre”. 

(Translation of Lorentz’ remarks : “Whatever the case, one should best, to my opinion, not be guided in such an important matter, by reflections on the degree of probability or simplicity of either hypothesis, but by experimental facts in order to determine the characteristics, rest or movement, in which the ether presents itself on the surface of the earth.” Please note the fact that Lorentz was cited in the paper of Michelson and Morley, thus indicating the importance of Lorentz at that time in these matters). 

From the preceding text “If the earth were a transparent body, it might perhaps be conceded, in view of the experiments just cited, that the inter-molecular ether was at rest in space” the “ether” indeed was reflected upon as possibly to be some kind of fluid(um) (moreover “in space”) being influenced (hindered, as if the ether shows e.g. a “viscosity”) by material objects. The description “But there can be hardly the question that the ether can and does pass through metals. Lorentz cites the illustration of a metallic barometer tube. When the tube is inclined the ether in the space above the mercury is certainly forced out, for it is incompressible.” is extremely striking here ! There is no doubt here that the scientific image by Michelson, Morley and Lorentz here is of an fluid(um) type of “ether which can be forced out of the metallic barometer tube”. 

It can be remarked here that a material object is built from atoms, incorporating electrons which are revolving the atom nucleus (which consists of protons and neutrons). Electrons are considered to have a completely negligible volume, so electrons can be regarded as occupying real space to a total negligible extent. Even the atom nucleus, while consisting of neutrons and protons as the nucleons, also occupies a  negligible amount of real space. The nucleus radius (in femtometer; fm) is equal to about the third root of the number of the total number of nucleons. As an example, ⁵⁶Fe has 56 nucleons and the nucleus radius is then about 5 fm.  The atom radius of Fe is however about 150 000 fm which is thus a factor 30 000 larger than the nucleus diameter, which means that the volume of the atom is even a factor (30000)³ larger than its nucleus volume! It is then very obvious that an atom’s volume, in fact overwhelmingly consists of real space. 

Therefore, regarding “Lorentz cites the illustration of a metallic barometer tube” in fact a reference is then made to the Torricelli experiment of which the description can be found on e.g. https://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/multimedia/TorricellisBarometricExperiment.html. The “creation of vacuum” above the mercury column in the transparent glass tube when turning over and dipping the one-end-sealed tube in the container, filled with mercury, indeed has been mind boggling to many people, witnessing the experiment. No air can enter the one-end-sealed tube at the top during the experiment but suddenly “out of nothing” there is appearing “something” at the top of the tube, “making room” for the mercury which drops in height to about 760 mm. That “something” is called “vacuum”. The straightforward/simple reason for the “appearance” of that “vacuum” at the top of the tube of course is that the electrons, protons and neutrons within the mercury atoms simply moved downwards through the already overwhelmingly real space, being present between those electrons, neutrons and protons. The revealed volume of real space thus simply was already there.

The statement then “When the tube is inclined the ether in the space above the mercury is certainly forced out, for it is incompressible” is totally wrong. In the case of inclining back the tube to allow the mercury to rise back to the top of the tube, there is no need at all for a statement of having the “ether to be forced out”: the collection of mercury atoms, showing an extremely sparse total geometrical volume of electrons and nucleons, simply travel and position themselves back in that, in relation, vast volume of real space on top of the tube. There is thus no forcing out at all of an “ether” “out of the top of the tube: the mercury atoms are simply moving into the real space at the top of the tube. The mercury atoms do not push an ether out of that zone at the top of the tube. Such notion of an “ether” is in fact grotesque. There is no such thing as an ether resembling a fluid(um).

At that time, a distinction was thus made between the “ether” and “space” as if the “ether” is present in “space” while not considering that both “ether” and “space” should simply mean the very same (and ether not being some kind of fluid(um)). A better image is then that the electrons and nucleons are located in real space and that a material object which moves through real space (the metallic barometer tube or even our planet itself) simply constitutes of the movement of their individual atoms, thus the electrons and nucleons of each individual atom of the material object through that, from the atoms viewpoint, overwhelming amount of real space. It is then completely irrelevant and grotesque to consider an ether which is “forced out of a metallic barometer tube” or an “inter-molecular ether at rest in space”. There is simply only real space (not as “nothing” but as “something”) but there is surely no “ether in space” as if “ether” then could be perceived as some kind of “fluid(um) present in space”. 

The notion of Lorentz “but by experimental facts in order to determine the characteristics, rest or movement, in which the ether presents itself on the surface of the earth” was also striking since that notion indeed implies that Lorentz considered the possibility of the presence of “an ether in space” (thus indeed as a fluid(um) in space) which thus eventually could manifest itself also as an ether “wind” at the surface of the earth which then eventually could influence light in its movement? Since the earth moves at high speed through space, in its orbit around the sun, that notion by Lorentz and Michelson would imply the disturbance of the ether by that high earth’s orbit speed? Of course such notion of an “ether wind” is grotesque and there is no existence of such an “ether” at all (neither thus an “ether-wind” in real space) as some kind of a viscous fluid(um) or medium “in real space” which influences the transport of light in real space.

The existence of real space next to the existence of electrons, protons, neutrons … itself however cannot be denied since obviously our planet (consisting of electrons, protons and neutrons) is located/present in and moves through real space. Space crafts and satellites (also consisting of electrons, protons and neutrons) are also present/located in real space which also cannot be denied. The same philosophical problem would arise here again: is there only matter (electrons, protons, neutrons, …) as a reality and is space then rather “nothing”, as in “a virtual mathematical space only definable by an artificial reference frame in a human’s mind” ? If real space thus would be “nothing”: how can photons then move in that “nothing” since they would need to cross the “nothing” when moving from location A to B in that space, as already thought about by the Ancient Greeks? The real space (vacuum) in our complete universe then would all be “nothing”? Such “nothing” point of view is simply unacceptable. Real space is an obvious reality in the very same way as electrons, neutrons, protons are considered to be real, also without even knowing what those precisely are.

Photons thus also need real space for their travel through real space and moreover at an incredible speed of about 300 000 000 meters per second. In addition, the moment that a photon is emitted from a light source, such photon becomes completely independent from that source (and does not inherit any velocity vector component in whatever direction from that source) but nevertheless the trajectory of the photon is “locked” to that real space. Being “locked” means that the photon will keep on travelling in real space (if total vacuum, thus empty of interfering matter) at the speed of light, precisely in the same direction as its original direction of emission. 

Regarding the material perspective: even our planet needs to be considered as an extremely “thin” object from this point of view regarding the structure of an individual atom. All electrons and all nucleons of planet Earth represent, on a volume basis, a negligible amount of space with respect to the total volume. From the factor of (30000)³ that means that our planet on a volume basis is a staggering 99.99999999999 % of real space and only the remaining part of the volume is then “occupied” (for whatever that means of course) by electrons and nucleons… There is no problem at all for our planet (thus for any of its atoms) to rush though space at a velocity, up to now estimated as an EOVV to be a staggering 30 000 meter per second, of course without any viscous effect of an “ether” present in “space” or without any “ether wind” at our planet’s surface! Also even Torricelli’s tube is thus travelling through space at that velocity and therefore even the glass and mercury atoms are simultaneously travelling through space at that same velocity: the real space “above the mercury in the closed tube” is thus even “replaced” continuously at that same velocity. 

So, let’s accept here that real space simply exists and that real space can be defined as being at perfect rest. There are no “ether winds” in an analogous way as the totally flawed mechanistic view of Descartes, claiming space not to be empty but to be completely filled with different kinds of moving material particles, causing streams (vortices) and therefore the movement of e.g. the planets.

Note: one could eventually criticize such definition of real space to be at perfect rest by claiming that it has been proven that space is not at rest but is expanding. To put things directly here in perspective: within cosmology a good estimate for the Hubble constant regarding the expansion of space is 74000 m/sec^-1Mpc^-1. Since 1 Mpc equals to 3.08567758×10²² m, the Hubble constant equals to 2.398×10^-18/sec. In fact, this means that space expansion at a “local” environment in the universe is extremely small. If, as an example, our own solar system would be assumed to have a “diameter” of 12.10¹² m (roughly the Pluto orbit), the Hubble constant implies in such example that the expansion of that diameter would be:

 Δdiam= 2.398×10^-18 . 12×10¹²  = 29 ×10^-6 m/sec     (5.10)

thus only about 30 micrometer per second for this vast distance of 12×10¹² m. The expansion per year in this example is about 900 m, thus an annual extremely small (7.5×10^-9 %) change. It is then obvious that the effect of the Hubble space expansion within the Michelson and Morley experiment  on earth can be completely neglected.

5.2.2 Discussion about the totally flawed “ray-of-light” model that was used by Michelson and Morley for their experiment

In order to discuss the Michelson and Morley experiment (coded MMe here) it is necessary to look into their graphical representation describing their experiment. A copy of the original MMe figures 1 and 2 within that publication is illustrated here as respectively Figure 20 and Figure 21. Figure 20 (upper right part) is looked into first. Michelson and Morley explicitly indicate in their publication that their graphical representation in their Figures 1 and 2 is based on the CS ray-of-light paradigm. As a result they drew their simplistic ray-of-light based straight lines such as e.g. s-a, a-b, a-c in their graphical representation.

Their model for Figure 20 (“at rest” mode) in linguistic format could thus be expressed as:

– A light source “s” sends a ray of light in the horizontal direction towards an inclined (45 °) mirror positioned in point “a” (the code M_a will be used for the inclined mirror). M_a is semi-transparent and therefore the ray of light is split into two parts: part of the ray continues towards point “c” where a vertical mirror (M_c) is positioned while the other part (ray “ab”) of the ray is reflected in position “a” towards position “b” of a horizontal mirror (M_b). Position “b” is the midpoint of M_b. The ray “ab” is then reflected again vertically by M_b in the direction of “d”. The ray “ac” is reflected by M_c in position “c” in the horizontal direction back to position “a” and is then reflected in position “a” by M_a vertically downward in the direction of “d”. The complete set-up in Figure 20 is at rest and since the distance between “a” and “b” is equal to the distance between “a” and “c”, the split light rays arrive at the same moment in position “d”. Since they arrive at exactly the same moment, the inference in “d” of both rays is perfect. – 

This linguistic model and the graphical representation in Figure 20 appear to be very plausible for CPBDs as a correct description/saving of the light phenomena in real space. It should be remarked however that no explicit time information (time labels) about all the light signals are depicted by Michelson and Morley in both Figures 20 and 21. In order to introduce first an alternative type of linguistic model and an alternative representation, the set-up is changed. An advanced photon source set-up is introduced to replace the light source in the MMe and which is assumed to be able to fire two photons A and B at the same time instant.

A linguistic model of the photon phenomena corresponding to the “at rest” situation in Figure 20 could therefore be as following:

 – Both photons are fired at t=0 and will travel to the inclined mirror M_a while arriving simultaneously in position “a” at t=t₁. Photon A is reflected by M_a in a vertical direction upwards towards the horizontal mirror M_b while photon B travels through M_a in the horizontal direction towards the vertical mirror M_c. Photon A arrives at position “b” of M_b at t=t₂ while photon B arrives also at t=t₂ at M_c. Photon A is reflected by M_b downwards to M_a while photon B is reflected by M_c in the horizontal direction towards M_a. Both photons A and B arrive at the same time t=t₃ at M_a. Photon A then travels further in the vertical direction through M_a downwards to position “d” while photon B is reflected by M_a downwards towards “d”. Evidently, photons A and B arrive at the same time t=t₄ at the position “d”. – 

Such alternative approach, now being based on two photons A and B, allows of course for much more concrete location versus time information for the photon phenomena while such crucial information was obviously not made available in the graphical representation by Michelson and Morley in Figure 20, nor in Figure 21. Given the distances between the individual mirrors and the laser, the time labels t₁, t₂, t₃ and t₄ in the simple “at rest” case of Figure 20 could be calculated in a straightforward way. However, in the case of Figure 21 the complete set-up is not at rest and moves in the horizontal direction to the right, at a velocity v. The photon source and all three mirrors thus move in sync at the same velocity v and such raises the question: how to calculate in this case of movement the photon locations versus time? Certainly the ray-of-light approach to model the phenomena in Figure 21 is primitive, simplistic and inaccurate for fundamental research (as I have proven in an irrefutable manner in my publications: see the menu “My Publications”). Figure 21 is in fact totally flawed and does not save at all the photon phenomena occurring in the MMe.

On top of that I proved already in 2006 in an irrefutable way through the result of my straightforward laser experiment (Figure 2) that the Michelson and Morley experiment is indeed definitely flawed. Notwithstanding the tenacious and blocking opposition since 2006 of numerous CPBDs for over 15 years now, I nevertheless succeeded finally in publishing a series of three interlinked Elsevier publications (see now the menu My Publications at this website) falsifying in an irrefutable manner the CS Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm (and thus also multiple other CS paradigms based on photon phenomena, even including the Lorentz contraction equation paradigm). As a result of my irrefutable falsification of the CS Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm, CS is thus now forced to reconsider that flawed paradigm and CS is thus also forced to scientifically reevaluate the MMe. There is now a major complication for CS and the CPBDs regarding a correct modelling of the photon phenomena in the MMe. The modelling could indeed be performed by CS on the basis of two different main light paradigms in CS: either the light quantum (photon) paradigm or either the wave paradigm (Maxwell equations). CS and the CPBDs are thus heavily challenged: which paradigm will the CPBDs implement in the modelling of Figure 21 to reevaluate the MMe? 

In the case of the implementation of the light quantum (photon) paradigm in the MMe modelling for a moving set-up, the CPBDs will need to apply a model of the reflection of photons by the reflecting surface of the inclined and moving mirror M_a. What is “a reflection of photons by a moving mirror surface”? M_a is also semi-transparent. Photons are light quanta and will arrive individually at the mirror surface. The mirror surface of course consists, from an atom point of view, of outer electrons at the mirror’s most outer thin surface plane corresponding to the atom nuclei in that mirror’s thin outer surface area. The arriving photons will therefore interact in a complex way with the electrons of those atoms in that outer thin reflective layer at the mirror’s surface and are “reflected” by that interaction. The CPBDs will need to address those photon-electron phenomena at the surface of a mirror to model the reflection of those photons. The CPBDs will however run into severe modelling problems when they would keep claiming that reflected photons will inherit a specific photon source velocity vector component in only one selective direction (see the CS based Figure 5 and my falsification of that Figure 5). How will the CPBDs prove such and how will CPBDs then also explain the fact that a photon is emitted by the photon source at the speed of light? Where does that speed of light then comes from? Such has certainly nothing to do with an inheritance from the photon source principle. CPBDs never have presented in literature a phenomenological consistent model based on photons (and thus photon-electron interactions at the mirror’s surfaces) in order to describe the MMe in the case of a set-up moving in real space.  At this moment CPBDs have simply no such consistent and accurate model of the photon-electron interactions at the mirror’s surfaces to describe accurately photon reflections at a mirror’s surface, let alone an accurate model in the case of moving mirrors. The CPBDs are e.g. indeed already in the wrong in that respect for over a century regarding the totally flawed CS light clock model as presented in the CS Figure 5. So now the CPBDs are challenged to develop a phenomenological consistent model to accurately describe the MMe including e.g. the trajectory of a photon being reflected by the tilted and moving mirror M_a towards the moving mirror M_b. I am sure that the CPBDs will simply fail to do so since they have no idea at all how to tackle such.

Then the CPBDs could try to model the light phenomena in the MMe for the set-up moving in real space on the basis of the electromagnetic wave paradigm approach (the four Maxwell electromagnetic wave equations). I expect again that the CPBDs will simply fail in such a  Maxwell equations based modelling attempt of the MMe for the set-up moving in real space.

It should be remarked that one CPBDs conveniently even started to avoid the discussion to get rid of my implementation request of the complicated Maxwell equations paradigm and he started to throw in yet another approach: the Huygens geometrical wave representation of “circular light waves” and interference effects of the wave fronts of such “circular light waves”. So the CPBDs and CS have already, for over 100 years now, accepted and approved (however erroneously as I have proven in an irrefutable way), the simplistic and primitive CS ray-of-light paradigm in the modelling of the fundamental MMe. Then, without any substantial proof, the CPBD who threw in the Huygens wave approach, simply argued that the reflection by an inclined and moving mirror M_a as presented by Michelson and Morley with respect to the “a-b” trajectory within Figure 21 can be modeled through the inference of waves. He also claimed that the reflection of light by the moving mirror, as a result of Huygens circular wave interference, will not be in the perfect y-direction, thus not according to a-b1 in Figure 21 but according to a-b, as claimed by Michelson and Morley on the basis of the CS ray-of-light paradigms. I asked him to deliver the proof of his, Huygens light “model” based, claim but he never did of course, since he couldn’t of course. Such types of CPBDs all have ample parroting skills with respect to the CS paradigms they have been conditioned in during their training but they cannot apply the paradigm at all in order to present a consistent model of a specific experimental set-up such as the MMe.

In CS and with respect to MMe is seems that Paul Feyerabend was right when he claimed that in science “Anything goes”. Such, next to Ihmre Lakatos, who stated that the existence of multiple different paradigms with respect to light phenomena is a very unsound situation in CS. Indeed, from the discussion in this section it is clear that the situation in CS regarding the modelling of e.g. the fundamental MMe is really an “Anything goes” situation. A flawed primitive CS “ray-of-light” paradigm was applied in the MMe and that approach is still accepted and defended by CS and the CPBDs in an incomprehensible and irrational way, notwithstanding all my dissemination efforts since 2006 up to 2023, proving that the CS Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm is totally flawed. My information is already there since 2006 but still in 2023 (December) the CPBds are not willing to admit that multiple CS paradigms based on light phenomena are totally flawed. They keep blocking further progress in science. I am however perfectly able to see right through the messy CS/CPBD fog of totally flawed CS paradigms based on light phenomena. Such is in fact really simple when reasoning on the basis of photons as individual light quanta.  Einstein moreover proved the existence of photons but regrettably never reasoned in his thought experiments on the basis of photons, which is in fact very peculiar that he never did.

Note: an additional important suggestion here is the implementation of a 45° inclined mirror in my straightforward laser experiment. It would indeed be very interesting with respect to my laser experiment result, as presented in Figure 2, to also implement a highly reflecting polished metal mirror at an inclination angle of 45° (e.g. very near to the laser) and then to observe the shift of the laser dot from the reflected laser beam on a measuring grid at a distance of about 10 m during a 24 hour period. I am of course convinced that such an experiment will show an analogous effect (of which the principle is revealed in Figures 3 and 4) with respect to the shift of the laser dot at the measuring grid; to be also detected and thus verified. Then the CPBDs will be forced in addition to agree with the fact that the MMe urgently needs to be reevaluated. Moreover, the CPBDs will then also being forced to additionally take into account an analogous shift of all the photon arrival locations, when being reflected forth and back by the multiple mirrors of type M_b as used in the MMe (see Figure 22, extracted from the publication of Michelson and Morley). Such will of course cause the analysis to be much more complex when compared to just one single mirror type M_b. Michelson and Morley indeed used multiple inclined mirrors which must have caused an amplification of the effect shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Such must have been the cause in addition of a run-away signal during the 90° rotation of their set-up, which must have ruined the original calibration of their set-up. Michelson and Morley did not implement that complex configuration of multiple additional and inclined mirrors  in their simplistic model and that is a massive shortcoming and a massive scientific error that they made in their modelling.

Indeed, in the MMe experiment, the considered shift (Figures 2, 3 and 4) alone must already have influenced the outcome of that MMe experiment since such a shift could have been at least 2 mm from the fact that the total photon travelling distance within the MMe set-up was about 20 m (as can be determined from the information within the publication of Michelson and Morley). It should be noted that the MMe set-up with the large number of mirrors in Figure 22 indeed needed first to be fine-tuned by Michelson and Morley at the start of the experiment (rotation angle zero degrees at the start). Those multiple reflecting mirrors were of course each set at a small off-angle in order to be able to bounce both “rays of light” forth and back multiple times in order to return them to the detector to optimize the interference. It is expected that the shift of 2 mm then could have been drastically amplified by the photon shift (from the effect as presented in Figures 2, 3 and 4) and the perhaps small, but still extremely important and ruining deflecting potential, of the off-angle setting of each reflection mirror during the rotation (towards an angle of 90°) of the heavy stone table, floating on a wooden ring on mercury, and on which the mirrors were mounted. The many inclined mirrors in total then must have largely amplified the shift and must have caused a signal run-away, leading to the totally flawed conclusion of a “null-result”. In such case, indeed only a very small part of the intended light signal would have hit the detector during the rotation of the set-up and therefore the inference could have failed from the self-induced misalignment (signal run-away by the many mirrors) and thus loss of light signal at the detector.

Please note that in the literature it was even mentioned that there was indeed interference detected (!) in the MMe, according to the expected trend but too faint (see Figure below which is a copy of Figure 6 in the MM paper at page 340). So the MMe result was surely no full “null-result” at all. Such clearly supports additionally the falsification as explained above. If the MMe was indeed to show a null-result in our universe then the MMe measurement should have produced totally flat lines in Figure 6 in the publication of Michelson and Morley, and not the ones as they in fact measured as shown in the Figure below.