maikelson

Arguments about the Michelson experiment have been going on for years. Suppoters of different theories have been finding more new details of the experimentation, new approaches to the rules of obtaining the end result without thinking that they use physical objects that have no physical description, i.e. their influence on the result is unknown.

It reminds me of a problem of calculating a number of apples in a birch. "A birch has n branches, each branch has m apples…" Sure, one can calculate it. But there are no apples in birches. So all these attempts of revision of the Michelson experiment will be monkey business until all the subjects of the experiment are determined with physical parameters.

Chapter 1. What is it all about?

The reader suggested my analyzing the concrete “revelatory” example of the article “Phantom of Theory of Relativity”. And the reader is the author. My disparaging manner concerning Einstein’s doctrine is likely to have afforded ground for hoping for infinite support.

Extracts from the article	Analysis and conclusions
W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) wrote in 1893: "Many workers and many thinkers have helped to built up the nineteenth century school of plenum - one ether for light, heat, electricity, magnetism". However, in the 19^th century there were still a great number candidates for the title of this one aether, many of them, though not all, were suggested before Maxwell and differed from each other by such properties as degrees of homogeneity and compressibility and to what extent they were dragged by the Earth. It was the main reason for a great number of postmaxwell “Maxwell’s theories”.	At that time they understood that it was impossible to understand all the rest without understanding of the essence of aether. It was obvious as well that this aether must be studied and must be given some definite parameters.
The most important problem which was to be solved by all these creators of aether and authors of “Maxwell theories” was dynamic explanation of J. Bradley’s aberration of light, Fresnel’s drag theory, and later the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887).	It is an obvious mistake striking with the illogical conclusion. We are suggested building houses and palaces before we learn properties of brick. Gentlemen, that won’t do. Knowledge develops from the particular to the general. And as aether is among Fresnel and Maxwell’s objects of interaction, one can only speculate without it.
H. A. Lorentz criticized the theory of Michelson’s Potsdam experiment (1881) in 1886: "It seems doubtful in my opinion that the hypothesis of Fresnel has been refuted by experiment". And in 1887 he wrote, deeply concerned about the Michelson-Morley experiment: "This experiment has been puzzling me for a long time, and in the end I have been able to think of only one means of reconciling it with Fresnel’s theory. It consists in the supposition that the line joining two points of a solid body, if at first parallel to the direction of the earth’s motion, does not keep the same length when it is subsequently turned through 90°”.	And this is a vivid example of what these speculations can lead to. One hypothesis is superimposed by another. Reliability of conglomerate tends to zero [1]. A solid body is supposed to be deformed during the interaction of mobile aether and a solid body. Does it mean that if one presses a steel pig with a cotton pad, the steel pig will be deformed? When given a choice between two theories, take the one that is funnier. (Blore's razor)
J. Larmor published the essay “Aether and Matter” in 1900 which contained not only the right rearrangements of the equations connecting one coordinate system of space-and-time with another moving with a constant velocity v relative to the former, but also a proof that one can get the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction with the help of them.	It is an instructive example too. This time it is substitution of a solution of a physical problem with a mathematical one. It is easier. And the spectator’s attention is now compelled to the coordinates transformation. For years to come… - It is a typical magician’s trick.
So, as a result of the circumstances mentioned above a fertile ground for creation of the special theory of relativity (STR) in 1905 was prepared. The theory is based on the then seeming unshakable principles (postulates) from which the already known Lorentz’s modifications were deduced.	There is nothing to say against it. And does one need to?

The Michelson experiment is known not to have found any influence of the earth point velocity on the measured light velocity. The fundamental difference of our author’s approach is that he has taken into account inverting of a signal reflected from a mirror (Pic. 1).

Pic.1. Phasing of the reflected signal.

Considering this valid the author specifies Michelson’s formula for the velocity v relative to aether. But the validity remains only if the reflection phase coincides with the integral value of the wave argument (according to the author’s picture). Under natural conditions reflection is likely to occur according to other criteria. What parameters are determinative? – Again they are aether properties, again the cars is before the horse, again the conclusion are untimely, so they are unlikely to be true. Consequently, we have to explore these properties first.