HELIOCENTRISM

REFUTED:

THE

MICHELSON-

MORLEY

EXPERIMENT

(1887)

Introduction to the Michelson-Morley Experiment

The Michelson-Morley experiment of 18871 decisively and categorically proved that the earth does NOT exhibit translational motion, i.e., that the earth does NOT orbit the sun.

An earlier version of the experiment had in fact been carried our by Michelson himself in 1881;2 see our review of that experiment at Heliocentrism Refuted: The Michelson Experiment (1881).

Michelson’s concluding remarks concerning the 1881 experiment were unambiguous and definitive:

    The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. [emphasis added]
    This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest. [emphasis added]3

While the 1881 experiment was sufficient in and of itself to prove that the earth is stationary, an important parameter was excluded from the experiment that actually strengthens the proof that the earth is stationary. Concerning the 1881 experiment, Michelson and Morely state in their 1887 paper:4

    In deducing the formula for the quantity to be measured, the effect of the motion of the earth through the ether on the path of the ray at right angles [emphasis added] to this motion was overlooked.5 The discussion of this oversight and of the entire experiment forms the subject of a very searching analyis by H. A. Lorentz,6 who finds that this effect can by no means be disregarded. In consequence, the quantity to be measured had in fact but half the value supposed, and as it was already barely beyond the limits of errors of experiment, the conclusion drawn from the result of the experiment might well be questioned; since, however, the main portion of the theory remains unquestioned [emphasis added], it was decided to repeat the experiment with such modifications as would insure a theoretical result [emphasis added] much too large to be masked by experimental errors. [...]

So the 1887 experiment was to be an improvement over the 1881 experiment, the intention being to reveal to a much higher fidelity, any disparity between theoretical and experimental results.

Design of the Michelson-Morley Experiment

Readers interested in the technical details of Michelson and Morley’s experimental design are advised to refer to the relevant part of their paper.7

Michelson and Morley’s Observations

Michelson and Morley’s paper provides a description of their observational methodology8 and a tabulation of their observations under the tabular headings, Noon Observations and P.M. Observations.9

Results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment

Michelson and Morley’s results leave little doubt that any relative velocity of the earth and the ether is highly questionable:

    The results of the observations are expressed graphically in fig. 6 [not reproduced on this web page]. The upper is the curve for the observations at noon, and the lower that for the evening observations. The dotted curves represent one-eighth of the theoretical displacements. It seems fair to conclude from the figure that if there is any displacement due to the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether, this cannot be much greater than \(0.01\) of the distance between the fringes.
    Considering the [alleged] motion of the earth in its [alleged] orbit only, this displacement should be \(2D\dfrac{v^2}{V^2}=2D\times10^{-8}\). The distance \(D\) was about eleven meters, or \(2\times10^{7}\) wave-lengths of yellow light; hence the displacement to be expected was \(0.4\) fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth of the earth’s [alleged] orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.10
    [...]

Conclusion

Michelson and Morley did not detect any relative motion between the earth and the aether because neither the earth nor the aether (at least the aether near and at the surface of the earth) is moving. Their statement on the matter is definitive:

    It appears from all that precedes reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel’s explanation of aberration.11 [...]

But with respect to Fresnel, it was only Fresnel’s heliocentric interpretation of stellar aberration that was refuted. Fresnel12,13 had hypothesized in 1818, refractional increase with refracting medium motion. That hypothesis was experimentally confirmed by Fizeau14 in 1851. But what is important to remember is that the phenomenon characterized by Fresnel and Fizeau is exclusivley optical in nature; in and of itself, it is not tied to any translational motion of the earth or the lack thereof. Fresnel’s explanation of stellar aberration is optically correct but cosmologically in error; being a heliocentrist, he did not consider that it is the stars that are moving (diurnally), not the earth, and hence the relative velocity between the stars and the observer.

Denouement

Whereas geocentrism was experimentally confirmed by George Biddell Airy as far back as 1871,15 re-confirmed by Albert A. Michelson in 1881 under entirely different experimental circumstances, and again re-confirmed here by Michelson and Morley in 1887, it should not surprise readers that modern systems, e.g., commercial aviation, dependent upon the earth being stationary, re-confirm geocentrism on a daily basis. See Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.


— FINIS —


  1. Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, “On the relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.” The American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol. XXXIV, No. 203 (November 1887), Art. XXXVI, pp. 333–345.↩️

  2. Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.” The American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol. XXII, No. CXXVIII (August 1881), Art. XXI, pp. 120–129.↩️

  3. Ibid., p. 128.↩️

  4. Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, op. cit., pp. 334–335.↩️

  5. Ibid. In a footnote (p. 334), Michelson and Morley state: “It may be mentioned here that the error was pointed out to the author of the former paper [i.e., Michelson] by M. A. Potier, of Paris, in the winter of 1881.”↩️

  6. Ibid. In a footnote (p. 335) Michelson and Morley provide the following reference: “De l’Influence du Mouvement de la Terre sur les Phen. Lum.” Archives Néerlandaises, xxi 2me livr. (1886).↩️

  7. Ibid., pp. 335–339.↩️

  8. Ibid., p. 339.↩️

  9. Ibid., pp. 339–340.↩️

  10. Ibid., pp. 340–341.↩️

  11. Ibid., p. 341.↩️

  12. Augustin Fresnel, « Lettre de M. Fresnel à M. Arago sur l’influence du mouvement terrestre dans quelques phénomènes d’optique », Annales de chimie et de physique, t. 9, 1818, p. 57–66.↩️

  13. Augustin Fresnel, « Note additionnelle à la lettre de M. Fresnel à M. Arago », Annales de chimie et de physique, t. 9, 1818, p. 286–287.↩️

  14. Hippolyte Fizeau, «​ Sur les hypothèses relatives à l’éther lumineux », Comptes Rendus. 33: 349–355.↩️

  15. George Biddell Airy, “On a supposed alteration in the amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, produced by the passage of the Light through a considerable thickness of Refracting Medium.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Volume XX (1871–1872), No. 130, November 23, 1871 (Art. IV), pp. 35–39; see also Heliocentrism Refuted: The Airy Experiment (1871).↩️


WEB PAGE CONTROL
REVISION 0
DATE 2022-MAR-29