The Michelson and Morley Experiment Once Again! - Revision history

ClaudeBot: restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

2026-07-22T17:58:19Z

restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:58, 22 July 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	It is ? to me ? a fact that ?mainstream science? has misused the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment in order to ?prove? that an ether or aether does not exist. However, it is also a fact, that a main reason for the misuse of this ? in many ways ? brilliantly conceived experiment, is, that the results of the experiment failed significantly in measuring up to the expectations. This astonishing discrepancy between the objectively obtained data sets and the theoretically expected levels of the drift readings, was then inadequately used to denounce the possible existence of an ether as a preferred frame of reference and as a wave transmitting medium for light and other electromagnetic waves. ? But is there an explanation for this mismatch concerning data and expectations? I think so. The logic behind the experiment looks (mostly) deceptively fine, as long as you look at the details in a static view ? But then, when the experiment is set into motion, a deviously buried and serious flaw springs into action. ''This severe flaw is embedded in the very principles for the opto-mechanical function of the experimental setup inside the general instrument.''		It is ? to me ? a fact that "mainstream science" has misused the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment in order to "prove" that an ether or aether does not exist. However, it is also a fact, that a main reason for the misuse of this ? in many ways ? brilliantly conceived experiment, is, that the results of the experiment failed significantly in measuring up to the expectations. This astonishing discrepancy between the objectively obtained data sets and the theoretically expected levels of the drift readings, was then inadequately used to denounce the possible existence of an ether as a preferred frame of reference and as a wave transmitting medium for light and other electromagnetic waves. ? But is there an explanation for this mismatch concerning data and expectations? I think so. The logic behind the experiment looks (mostly) deceptively fine, as long as you look at the details in a static view ? But then, when the experiment is set into motion, a deviously buried and serious flaw springs into action. ''This severe flaw is embedded in the very principles for the opto-mechanical function of the experimental setup inside the general instrument.''

	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|michelson morley experiment]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|michelson morley experiment]]

	[[Category:Aether\|michelson morley experiment]]		[[Category:Aether\|michelson morley experiment]]

ClaudeBot: infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

2026-07-21T13:35:51Z

infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:35, 21 July 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\| published = 2010		\| published = 2010
	\| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]		\| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]
	\| volume = [[7]]		\| volume = 7
	\| num_pages = 5		\| num_pages = 5
	\| pages = 346-350		\| pages = 346-350

ClaudeBot: Fill in keywords from the wiki's abstract records

2026-07-21T11:30:58Z

Fill in keywords from the wiki's abstract records

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:30, 21 July 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5473.pdf Link to paper]		\| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5473.pdf Link to paper]
	\| author = [[Bent Kargaard Nielsen]]		\| author = [[Bent Kargaard Nielsen]]
			\| keywords = Michelson-Morley experiment, electromagnetic waves, Ether
	\| published = 2010		\| published = 2010
	\| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]		\| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T03:04:21Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 1 January 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|michelson morley experiment]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|michelson morley experiment]]

	[[Category:Aether]]		[[Category:Aether\|michelson morley experiment]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T18:19:36Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 1 January 2017
Line 14:		Line 14:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	It is ? to me ? a fact that ?mainstream science? has misused the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment in order to ?prove? that an ether or aether does not exist. However, it is also a fact, that a main reason for the misuse of this ? in many ways ? brilliantly conceived experiment, is, that the results of the experiment failed significantly in measuring up to the expectations. This astonishing discrepancy between the objectively obtained data sets and the theoretically expected levels of the drift readings, was then inadequately used to denounce the possible existence of an ether as a preferred frame of reference and as a wave transmitting medium for light and other electromagnetic waves. ? But is there an explanation for this mismatch concerning data and expectations? I think so. The logic behind the experiment looks (mostly) deceptively fine, as long as you look at the details in a static view ? But then, when the experiment is set into motion, a deviously buried and serious flaw springs into action. ''This severe flaw is embedded in the very principles for the opto-mechanical function of the experimental setup inside the general instrument.''[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		It is ? to me ? a fact that ?mainstream science? has misused the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment in order to ?prove? that an ether or aether does not exist. However, it is also a fact, that a main reason for the misuse of this ? in many ways ? brilliantly conceived experiment, is, that the results of the experiment failed significantly in measuring up to the expectations. This astonishing discrepancy between the objectively obtained data sets and the theoretically expected levels of the drift readings, was then inadequately used to denounce the possible existence of an ether as a preferred frame of reference and as a wave transmitting medium for light and other electromagnetic waves. ? But is there an explanation for this mismatch concerning data and expectations? I think so. The logic behind the experiment looks (mostly) deceptively fine, as long as you look at the details in a static view ? But then, when the experiment is set into motion, a deviously buried and serious flaw springs into action. ''This severe flaw is embedded in the very principles for the opto-mechanical function of the experimental setup inside the general instrument.''

			[[Category:Scientific Paper\|michelson morley experiment]]

	[[Category:Aether]]		[[Category:Aether]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T17:31:40Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = The Michelson and Morley Experiment Once Again!
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5473.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Bent Kargaard Nielsen]]
| published = 2010
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]
| volume = [[7]]
| num_pages = 5
| pages = 346-350
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5473.pdf here]

==Abstract==

It is ? to me ? a fact that ?mainstream science? has misused the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment in order to ?prove? that an ether or aether does not exist. However, it is also a fact, that a main reason for the misuse of this ? in many ways ? brilliantly conceived experiment, is, that the results of the experiment failed significantly in measuring up to the expectations. This astonishing discrepancy between the objectively obtained data sets and the theoretically expected levels of the drift readings, was then inadequately used to denounce the possible existence of an ether as a preferred frame of reference and as a wave transmitting medium for light and other electromagnetic waves. ? But is there an explanation for this mismatch concerning data and expectations? I think so. The logic behind the experiment looks (mostly) deceptively fine, as long as you look at the details in a static view ? But then, when the experiment is set into motion, a deviously buried and serious flaw springs into action. ''This severe flaw is embedded in the very principles for the opto-mechanical function of the experimental setup inside the general instrument.''[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Aether]]