Relativity and Cosmology


New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory

Authors: Henok Tadesse

I have already proposed a new theory known as Apparent Source Theory( AST ) that has been highly successful in explaining the hitherto enigmatic and apparently contradictory light speed experiments. For example, to this date, there is no known, accepted theory of the speed of light that truly reconciles the 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fringe shift in the Sagnac effect. Apparent Source Theory is formulated as follows: the effect of absolute motion for co-moving light source and observer is to create an apparent change in position of the light source relative to ( as seen by ) the observer. Therefore, in the Michelson-Morley experiment ( MMX ), there will be an apparent change in position of the light source as seen from the point of light detection. There will be only a small fringe shift due to apparent change of source position for the same reason that there will be only a small fringe shift if the position of the light source was actually/physically changed. The ether doesn't exist, as disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but absolute motion does exist, as proved by the Silvertooth and other experiments. Apparent Source Theory has successfully explained the conventional and modern Michelson-Morley experiments, the Sagnac effect, the enigmatic Silvertooth experiment, the Venus radar ranging experiment anomaly ( as analyzed by Bryan G Wallace ), the Marinov experiment, the Roland De Witte experiment and moving source and moving mirror experiments.In this paper,Iwill present a new analysis and interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Sagnac effect and the phenomenon of stellar aberration. There have been two interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX)within the physics community: the 'null' interpretation and the non-null interpretation. From the point of view of stationary ether theory, the MMX result is essentially null because the observed fringe shift is much smaller than the expected value. On the contrary, the MMX result is non-null from the perspective of relativity theories, mainly the classical emission theory and the Special Relativity Theory (SRT ) because there were always small but significant fringe shifts observed, as in the Miller experiments. Therefore, the MMX disproves not only the ether theory, but also the emission theory and SRT. A correct theory of the speed of light, therefore, should account not only for the 'null' interpretation, but also for the non-null interpretation. To this date there is no such known, accepted theory of light. Apparent Source Theory (AST )has resolved this century old puzzle by explaining the small fringe shifts observed in MM experiments. In this paper it will be shown that AST predicts a maximum fringe shift of about 0.013 fringes for the 1881 Michelson experiment. Michelson measured a maximum fringe shift of about 0.018 fringes !The discrepancy may be reduced if more details of the dimensions of the original Michelson apparatus are obtained. For example, slight variation of the dimensions have resulted in a fringe shift of 0.02125 fringes. AST has successfully resolved the enigmatic contradiction between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac effect. No known existing theory of light, including SRT, has achieved this.AST also explains why conventional Michelson-Morley experiments gave small fringe shifts, but modern Michelson-Morley experiments using optical cavity resonators give almost a complete null result. Despite all these successes, AST is found to be in conflict with stellar aberration, a simple analysis I overlooked for years. This was a serious problem that made me resort to speculative ideas*. This contradiction has been resolved at last in my other recent paper that gives a new interpretation to the phenomenon of stellar aberration.

Comments: 45 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-08-27 04:37:40
[v2] 2018-10-09 06:38:58
[v3] 2018-10-17 08:21:01
[v4] 2018-10-22 01:35:32
[v5] 2018-11-11 23:38:06
[v6] 2018-11-26 01:10:37
[v7] 2018-11-29 06:18:39
[v8] 2018-12-07 07:05:24

Unique-IP document downloads: 47 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus