A Re-understanding of the Zero Result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As well-known that in order to explain the zero result of the Michelson-Morley experiments (M-M experiments), Lorentz proposed the Lorentz formula of coordinate transformation and led to the birth of Einstein's special relativity. The authors carefully re-examine the M-M experiment and find a serious problem. The premise of the M-M experimental calculations was that the light source was fixed on the absolutely stationary reference frame of the universe (or the ether stationary reference frame). However, in the actual experiments, the light source was fixed on the earth motion reference frame, moving and rotating with the interferometers, which lead to the invalid calculation result of the M-M experiment. In this paper, the correct calculation method is used to prove that the zero result of the M-M experiment can be well explained by using the Galilean relativity principle and the Galilean velocity addition rule. Therefore, the most important experimental foundation of special relativity does not exist. The Lorentz coordinate transformation formulas become unnecessary, and the principles of special relativity and the invariant speed of light are unnecessary too. The experimental tests of special relativity are also discussed briefly. It points out that these experiments are either wrong or have other explanations, and the explanations of special relativity are not unique ones. Physics should give up the Lorentz transformation formula and the Einstein's special relativity completely, introduce the cosmic absolute stationary reference frame, and establish the kinetic theory based on the mass-velocity formula which should be considered as an empirical formula, to solve the fundamental problems in astrophysics and cosmology thoroughly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".