What does Michelson’s Experiment actually prove?

I have explained elsewhere how double slit experiment provides a direct proof of existence of Ether. Here I present why Michelson’s experiment is one of the most ill-conceived and misinterpreted experiments in science. If one carefully goes through the experiment’s background and the results, one would realize that there was nothing in this hyped historical experiment that went against the Ether theory.

Michelson-Morley experiment was devised on the premise that if Ether exists in space, then Earth moving through that Ether medium would feel ‘Ether winds’, just like how a bike rider moving through air would feel air winds.

And it was premised that light beams passed in different directions i.e. one beam passed perpendicular to the direction of the Ether wind and another beam passed along the direction of the Ether wind would take different times to travel the same distance.

Michelson apparently used swimmers analogy to illustrate the logic behind the above premise – When two swimmers with equal competence are asked to swim to and fro for equal distance in a flowing river, the swimmer who swims across the river apparently will take a shorter time for the round trip than the one who swims first down the stream and then up the stream. So it was predicted that the light beam which travels perpendicular to the Ether wind would take shorter time than the beam which travels down the Ether wind in the first half and then against the wind in the second half of its journey. So scientists predicted that the two returning beams would be out of phase when they meet finally and hence would result in interference on the detector screen. Further they thought that the time delay and hence the degree of interference would vary depending upon the orientation of the interferometer arms with respect to the direction of the Ether wind.


As can be seen, the setup consists of a monochromatic light source, a half silvered mirror, two reflecting mirrors, and a light detector. All these are fixed on a rotatable frame. A beam of monochromatic light from the source impinges upon the half silvered mirror at 45 degrees angle. While part of the beam goes unhindered through the mirror straight, part of it gets reflected by the half silvered mirror and travels in the perpendicular direction. In other words, the half silvered mirror splits the original beam of light into two beams and sends them in two perpendicular directions. These two beams get reflected back by the two mirrors placed at equidistance from the half silvered mirror. The returning beams join each other at the half silvered mirror and reach the detector screen as shown. The experimenters then study the interference pattern produced on the detector. The experiment is then repeated after rotating the whole setup so as to alter the relative velocity of Ether wind with respect to the two light beams. And each time the pattern of interference produced on the detector screen is studied.

To the astonishment of the scientific minds, the experiment yielded no interference between the returning beams. It implied that both the returning beams have arrived at the half silvered mirror at the same time contrary to their expectation that the ‘perpendicular beam’ would take longer for the return trip than the ‘parallel beam’.

To the scientists, the null result i.e. the lack interference between the two beams implied two possibilities:

1) Either there wasn’t anything called Ether

2) or the Earth must be dragging a layer or blob of Ether around it in which case there wouldn’t be any Ether wind to detect.

Apparently evidence from other observations (aberration of star light, Fizeau exp, Sagnac effect etc) has disproved the possibility of Ether drag, so the scientific community is left with the first possibility. Thus scientists have interpreted the null result in MM experiment as disproof of existence of Ether medium.

But relativists are extremely good at (or more correctly, extremely vulnerable to) misinterpreting experimental data and claiming every observation as highly supportive of their stupid religion of relativity even when the observation in fact proves the opposite. And Michelson’s experiment is not an exception to their distorted thinking.

Understanding Ether wind and Ether drag

To understand why MMX is based upon a wrong premise and hence incapable of drawing any valid conclusions about Ether, first we will have to answer two important questions.

1) What is actually the basis of the so called Ether wind?

2) What is the relation between Ether wind and Ether drag? Is it really true that Ether wind wouldn’t exist when Ether gets dragged?

We all know that, even when the climate is calm and the air is motionless, we experience air winds if we go on a bike ride. Similarly a ball moving inside a pond of still water would experience what may be called as water wind. But how do we explain this phenomenon of wind? In other words what is the physical basis of this experience of wind?

Whether the wind effect is because of air currents or our own motion in still weather, it is ultimately collisions that our body receives from the air particles which makes us experience the so called air wind. And same is the case with the ball. As the ball moves through the still water, it receives collisions from the water particles and it is these collisions which make the ball feel the ‘water wind’. And what happens to the water particles? As the water particles get hit by the ball, they obviously move in the direction of the force. In other words the water particles which collide with the ball get dragged by the same. And, the ball drags not only the particles which collide directly with it, but also the farther away particles by way of ‘indirect’ collisions.

In summary, whenever a body moves through a stationary fluid medium, the body drags the surrounding fluid particles with it. So the scenario of a body (Earth) experiencing a fluid wind (e.g. Ether wind) but not dragging the fluid doesn’t simply exist. And so is the scenario of a body dragging the fluid medium but not experience the fluid wind. The wind effect and the drag effect are inseparable because they both result from the same fundamental mechanism i.e. collisions between the body and the medium’s particles. It may be true to say that while it is the moving body which experiences the wind effect; the medium’s particles ‘experience’ the drag effect.

Our physicists’ assumption that Ether winds wouldn’t occur if Ether gets dragged clearly proves their lack of understanding about both Ether wind and Ether drag.

And these ‘great’ physicists, despite their vast ignorance, claim to disprove Ether wind and Ether drag  and there by disprove the existence of Ether altogether! And science students religiously believe in and chant what the ignorant physicists preach them. That is the plight of the most intelligent discipline of science today.

What does Michelson’s experiment actually prove?

Despite the fact that physicists hail MMX as highly supportive of relativity, the experiment actually proves that the motion of a light beam gets affected by that of its source and thus destroys the superstitious theory of relativity. From commonsense we know that the direction of travel of a projectile gets affected by the motion of its source. For example imagine a bullet being shot towards the north from a stationary train. And now compare the same with the scenario when the bullet gets fired while the train moves towards the west. In the first scenario, obviously the bullet travels straight north and in the second scenario, it travels in the northwest direction, according to a stationary observer.

And same is the case with waves. As I have discussed elsewhere, at the most fundamental level, what underlies wave motion is nothing but to and fro motion of particles and the various phenomena of wave motion (e.g. interference, scattering) can be explained purely by particle model. So why should we expect waves to behave differently from particles? Imagine a stationary ‘oscillator’ generating water waves which propagate towards the North. Now imagine the oscillator moving in the westward direction. The water waves that it generates now propagate mainly in the north-west direction instead of travelling straight north.

Similarly, as Michelson’s interferometer moves westward, the perpendicular light beam (which would travel northward if the earth/ interferometer were to be at rest in the Ether Ocean) travels along the northwest direction as it reaches towards the opposite mirror, and travels along the southwest direction during its return journey to reach the first mirror.

When the mirrors are stationary, the photon travels with velocity 'c' straight towards the north during the first half and then straight towards south during the second half of its flight.

When the mirrors are stationary, the photon travels with velocity ‘c’ straight towards the north during the first half and then straight towards south during the second half of its flight.

'Trajectory' of the light photon when the mirrors move westward: the photon, as it gets fired from the first mirror, will move northward with velocity ‘c’ and moves westward with velocity ‘v’. Obviously the photon’s velocity in the northwest direction would be √v²+c².

‘Trajectory’ of the light photon when the mirrors move westward: the photon, as it gets fired from the first mirror, moves northward with velocity ‘c’ and westward with velocity ‘v’. Obviously the photon’s velocity in the northwest direction would be √v²+c².

Imagine what would happen if the light beam’s motion doesn’t get affected by the westward motion of the mirrors/ interferometer. The light beam would travel ‘straight’ northward and would ‘miss’ the opposite mirror because the mirror would have moved westward by the time the light beam reaches the opposite ‘bank’. And even if it doesn’t miss (imagining that the mirror is long enough), the light beam wouldn’t return to the same point on the first mirror from where it originally got departed because this mirror would have moved westward.

If the photon's motion is unaffected by the westward motion of the source, it would miss the opposite mirror and hence wouldn't comeback. Even if it doesn't miss (imagining that the mirrors are long enough), it wouldn't return to the original point on the first mirror.

If the photon’s motion is unaffected by the westward motion of the source, it would miss the opposite mirror and hence wouldn’t comeback. Even if it doesn’t miss (imagining that the mirrors are long enough), it wouldn’t return to the original point on the first mirror.

So the observation that the perpendicularly ‘fired’ light photon comes back to the same point on the half silvered mirror suggests that its motion gets affected by the motion of its source (i.e. the interferometer or the Earth) like the case with any other projectile in our everyday world. This obviously destroys the superstition of constant speed of light and the superstition that SOL is unaffected by the motion of its source.

Basically MMX is incapable of detecting the Ether wind because, as we have noted above, the experiment was conceived and interpreted amidst a background of vast scientific ignorance. As explained elsewhere, while the wave like interference pattern produced by photons in the double slit experiment provides a clear evidence for existence of Ether, the phenomenon of gravity serves as a clear proof of differential Ether drag or ‘Whirl pooling’ of Ether around the spinning celestial bodies.

If Michelson’s experiment was really capable of detecting Ether wind, the ‘intelligent’ physicists should have devised a similar experiment with sound waves and water waves and detected air winds and water winds. In any case because the deluded physicists ‘confess’ that the lack of interference in Michelson’s experiment is compatible with Ether model if Ether drag is taken into account, we will not break our heads arguing why MMX is incapable of detecting Ether wind, instead we will look into those observations and experiments (eg. aberration of star light) which are claimed by the relativists as disproof of Ether drag.

Go to Main Index


  • Haresh  On April 18, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    The results of this experiment is disturbing. I have researched about it for a while, and I also think that Relativity is idiotic. Much evidence seems to vindicate a Braheian solar system. If you are open minded enough to admit the stupidity of much of modern physics I suggest you check out /galileowaswrong.com/

    The hardest part sharing this with others is that they are unable to question the Copernican principle, drilled into them since childhood. They seem to know that the earth moves at 30 km/s even though science cannot prove it.

    Liked by 3 people

  • curt weinstein  On October 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    re: “Apparently evidence from other observations (aberration of star light, Fizeau exp, Sagnac effect etc) had disproved the possibility of Ether drag,”

    First of all, the aberration of star light is best explained by an ether drag– check it out. Sagnac effect is controversial; I can’t even remember it now. As I recall, the Fizeau experiment is consistent with the entirely dragged Ether (everybody had been saying not-dragged or partially-dragged — in error).

    Cheers, Curt

    Liked by 1 person

  • hywel  On November 10, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    how do we know that light in a moving frame, as in the diagrams above, do actually hit the same spot when the frame is stationary?
    in one second light could travel round the planet 6 or 7 times in one second.
    the ridiculous invariance theory has never been proved in an experiment because no one has ever measured light using an interferometer at sufficient high speed.

    do you know of an experiment that prove diagram: ‘Trajectory’ of the light photon when the mirrors move westward’ to be the case?
    as much as i am sceptical about spec relativity, i am still thinking that light is a far field, and free from source.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 14, 2014 at 10:45 am

      I believe that photons are like any other particle projectiles, so their behaviour shouldn’t be different from projectiles in our everyday life. And Michelson’s experiment clearly proves this. (The whole purpose of the above discussion is to highlight that point. May be I haven’t done the job perfectly!) If light photons didn’t follow the trajectory as depicted above, they would reach a different spot on the source mirror and so when combined with the ‘parallel beam’, would result in interference.

      I am not sure why you think the interferometer have to be moving at close to the ‘speed of light’. Even if invariance of SOL were to be true, you don’t need the interferometer moving so fast to prove it.

      When things can be explained in simple and clear terms, why bring in the mythical ‘fields’?


  • buzzer  On November 16, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Hello, Which of your writings speaks about faster than light travel. I want to hear your thoughts on faster than light travel. I know the Theory of Relativity rules it out.

    Thank you.


  • MiguiCM  On November 20, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    propagating waves have a fixed speed on each medium. Speed of sound is close to 330 m/s at 1 bar. The spees of sound waves depends on the mechanicall properties of the medium ( density, pressure, viscosity for air for example).

    Then depends on the speed you move respect to the medium you see diferent propagation velocities. If you move at 200 m/s on a plane, from the plane sight, front waves travel at 130 m/s. When you go at supersonic velocities , you travel faster than the sound waves. Nobody in front of the plane will hear it until has passed.

    So waves can’t travel at diferent speeds. You can understand this looking at the typical cone shape that boat make. You can try in your bathroom, your finger will be faster than the transversal velocity.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 20, 2014 at 10:12 pm

      If you want to recite lines from your religious literature, let me make it clear that this isn’t the best platform for you. Rather you try that any of your own religious platforms and you will surely be rewarded for your unspoilt religiousness.

      There are so many mental hurdles that your religious mind has to cross before you can even dream of understanding what I am saying here. First of all, there aren’t anything called sound waves. Sound is a sensation that we perceive when our auditory mechanism receives specific patterns of stimuli. These stimuli could come via water waves, air waves or solid media waves etc.

      That is, when your religion says sound waves travelling in water, they are nothing but water waves and when that says sound waves travelling in air, they are nothing but air waves. There isn’t any medium called ‘sound’ for there to exist sound waves.

      And similarly, Light is sensation that we perceive when ether waves/ EM waves strike our visual receptors.

      If you have ever observed the tides in a sea and if you have possessed the least inquisitive mind, you would have surely noticed some tides travelling faster than others. What does it mean? Water waves travel at different speeds. And so are air waves and ether waves.


      Liked by 1 person

  • A. C. Stamos  On November 25, 2014 at 2:57 am

    Relativity explains accurately the results of Michelson Morley Experiment, us will as anything else one throws at it. For example, if relativity were not to be true, particle accelerators would not work. The reason particle accelerators do work, is precisely because critical corrections of relativity are taken into account in their design.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 25, 2014 at 3:32 pm

      I am aware that your crowd claims Michelson’s experiment as strong proof of your stupid religion. And that is the reason why I have taken the pain of talking about that stupid experiment of yours. I am sure your stupid religion didn’t allow your ‘faithful’ mind to grasp what I have said because that would expose the blunders committed by your pastors and would destroy your own religion.

      But, let me tell you that simply reciting lines from your religious literature or chanting what your pastors preached doesn’t constitute sufficient argument to counter the above reasoned argument made by me.

      So, your relativity religion explains everything that one throws at it? But that’s exactly how the believers of God also claim. They believe that God explains everything that one throws at Him! For example without God, your particle accelerators wouldn’t work. The reason your particle accelerators do work, is precisely because of God!

      Religious believers always swear that their religion is capable of explaining everything that one throws at it. Because they blindly swear by their religious beliefs and customs and not bother about being rational, it is not surprising that religious believers often succeed in ‘explaining’ everything using their religion.

      (Once again my apologies to the believers of God here. The God’s hypothesis is much more rational than the stupid relativity religion)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Savvy  On January 7, 2018 at 11:26 am

      what bloody critical corrections are you talking about?


  • Galacar  On November 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    to Stamos.

    You wrote

    Relativity explains accurately the results of Michelson Morley Experiment, us will as anything else one throws at it. For example, if relativity were not to be true, particle accelerators would not work. The reason particle accelerators do work, is precisely because critical corrections of relativity are taken into account in their design.

    But it is too vague! And do you know why particle accelerators work as per relativity?
    In the calculations and the way things are measured, relativity is imagined as true, right at the beginning of the whole thing. So, it is, like most of physics, circular!
    It looks like you take things too much at face value in the religious physics textbooks!
    Relativity is really extremely flawed. Like we do here start thinking for yourself.
    That would be a kind of a revolution. 😉


  • woodside  On March 4, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    Actually we know that light does not take on the aditional velocity from its source because of the experimentally verified reasoning of DeSitter 1913 on light arriving at the earth from binary stars not being affected by the velocity of the stars. But there is a re-working of the geometry used in Michelson-Morley experiment here – http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html
    From this site here – http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/


    • drgsrinivas  On March 5, 2015 at 9:52 am

      Not just light, I have explained why a ball also doesn’t take the additional velocity of a train. It is not beyond commonsense and we don’t have to bow to their distorted logic and buy their stupid theories to explain the so called DeSitter effect.
      By ‘reworking’ and by distorting space and reasoning, we can prove and disprove any thing. But that is not science. Ether provides the most logical and straightforward explanation for all the observations that physicists claim as proof of their weird theories (without ‘reworking’ or manipulating or distorting the space and logic)


  • woodside  On March 6, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    There is no distorting space and reasoning in the Paul Marmet paper , he is discussing the reflection of light from a obliquely oriented mirror in motion.


  • J Jagannath  On April 28, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    DrG you wrote: “So the observation that the perpendicularly ‘fired’ light photon comes back to the same point on the half silvered mirror suggests that its motion gets affected by the motion of its source…”

    Actually Michelson noted in his 1887 paper that they do not meet at the same point and he noted that this effect was a small one. His aberration angle, “2a” at the top mirror is an indication of that. He actually concluded that it was hopeless to detect the motion of the sun via a terrestrial experiment because the two beams nearly travel equal distances at c, in a master ether frame.

    Here are the correct transit times:


    Tgoing= D/c,
    Treturning = D/c
    Total Tvertical = 2D/c

    Tgoing = (D+d1)/c
    Treturning = (D-d2)/c
    Total Tvertical = 2D/c

    Tvertical – Tparallel = 2D/c – 2D/c = nearly null.

    since d1 is not equal to d2 by a very very small value that any terrestrial experiment, such as the MMX, was never capable of detecting anything, even though there was a velocity potential according a stationary ether hypothesis. This was noted years earlier by Maxwell in his letter. Later noted by Ritz in his 1908 paper and many others, I believe, including Voigt. Instead, they all proposed using Jupiter moons to determine the velocity of our sun, relative to a stationary ether, where distances such as d1 and d2, would become significantly large and measurable.

    This was why Maxwell wrote a letter to somebody in the US, inquiring about the positions of various Jupiter moons. It was this letter that Michelson stumbled on when it was published in Nature, after Maxwell’s death. In my eBook I explain this in greater detail with figures for easier understanding. If you have a gmail account, I will be more than happy to add you so you can review my analysis.

    If others wish to read my work, please share your gmail addresses here. Many thanks in advance.




  • Eric McClurg  On May 27, 2015 at 5:41 am

    You are correct. The expirement did exactly what it was supposed to do. No shocker there. It’s the misunderstanding of the physics behind the experiment that scientist didn’t and still don’t understand. Once again, physical science (physics) is, quite simply, making sense out of and logically explaining physical phenomena. A simple explanation of this experiment and the nature of the ether can easily be explained and demonstrated using a few simple models which we have all seen and played. The first model I will use will be something most people have seen sitting on someone’s desk. Remember the series of 4 or 5 steel balls hanging from a pendulum. The one where you pull one ball and let it drop and it makes the ball at the far end go up, then it falls back and hits the balls again making the original ball go up? Well imagine if there were only three balls but instead only pulling one up you would pull the two at the ends up. The ball on the left you would pull up all the way but the ball on the right you pull up only half way. Now if you could time it so as if both balls would hit the center ball at the same time you would observe that the middle ball will remain motionless even though there is more force from the impact of the ball on the left. The center ball as a traveling light particle/wave would not slow even when hit by a force much greater coming from one side as opposed to the other. This is the simple explanation. There are more problems with model but I have worked them out. Contact me to get my solutions to the other problems. There is not enough space here to explain it all.


  • Hywel  On May 29, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    the only issue i have with ether, is why is so hard to detect? with water waves and sound waves the medium does not hide from us.
    if ether exists it must be a bed of electromagnetic radiation or something similar.
    why is so easy to detect the disturbance but not the medium in this case?


    • Eric McClurg  On May 30, 2015 at 10:28 am

      If you want the answer to your question I think that you may try researching Nicola Tesla and his opinions on the subject. I’m not much of an authority on electricity, electrical current or electromagnetic current, but my belief is that it is some sort of electromagnetic current or field or even both.


  • Mark McDowell  On August 9, 2015 at 6:12 am

    This article is just ridiculous. The whole assumption of ether is that there must be a STATIONARY substance or medium for light to travel through. How can anything be determined to be stationary when speaking of the universe as a whole? It can’t. All movement is just relative to something else; there is no such thing as anything that can be intrinsically stationary. Furthermore, Relativity has been factually proven time and time again. Even GPS systems depend upon taking relativity into account.


    • drgsrinivas  On August 29, 2015 at 7:52 pm

      That once again proves how your religion thrives upon ridiculous assumptions. Why do you think that there must be a stationary substance for light waves to travel through? Don’t your folk know that water waves travel in a medium that is not stationary and sound waves travel through air etc? All those experiments that your pastors claim as proof of relativity have been addressed in detail including your folk’s most favourite thing i.e. GPS systems. But don’t bother to look at any of those pages, in stead, keep chanting that your religion has been factually proven time and time again.

      As long you faithfully believe in what the science pastors preach and ignore your commonsense, you wouldn’t be able to judge things rationally and independently. The moment you reclaim your commonsense, you would surely realise how the religion of relativity got evolved: relativists first make some ridiculous presumptions, then undertake some silly experiments, make some weird conclusions and finally claim everything as proof of their stupid religion. No where there exists any logical connection between their observations, their presumptions, the experiments that they undertake and the way they interpret data. Don’t let the technology ‘bribe’ you and convert your rational mind into a religious believer of science!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dan123  On January 21, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      Nikola Telsa knew the earth was flat and Staionary, remember your religion didn’t lie about some things, they lied about everything.

      Liked by 1 person

  • avinash  On October 1, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    if i remember correctly i think i saw an article about cosmic microwave background and elecromagnetic radiation which travels faster than the speed of light but was put to limitations with an other theory just to make sure it suits the theory of relativity which states nothing can beat the speed of light.
    can i find that link?
    or if can you comment on that?


  • Daniel Knight  On October 16, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    “And if one looks for Ether drag to explain the lack of Ether wind, that obviously shows one’s lack of understanding about both Ether drag and Ether wind.”

    I don’t get your explanation and others, at first you seem to be saying there is an ether, photonic ether, but then you say it seems that it can’t be detected because it’s moving with earth and that the object and colliding wind move at the same time (why no turbulence by the way? Or is there?) Or are you a geoce ntrist as I am and believe in an ether that revolves around Earth or do you believe in some sort of low level photonic medium that is extremely hard to detect, some sort of photon with almost no measurable energy?


    • drgsrinivas  On October 20, 2015 at 10:56 pm

      Well, there can be no controversy regarding the existence of Ether.

      Can we prove it? Of course yes. Double slit experiment proves the existence of Ether beyond doubt. Without Ether, photons would have produced particle pattern of impacts in the double slit experiment. The explanation offered by the quantum physics (a particle travelling in all directions simultaneously) is so stupid that it constitutes a great shame to planet Earth. The entire human race must be ashamed for bringing up such an absurd theory and calling that as science!

      Next, can we feel/detect Ether? Of course yes. But our scientists have given a mythical explanation for that ‘feel’ and labelled that as cosmic background microwave radiation.

      Having proved and felt Ether, now we can make use of that ether to explain many phenomena and observations in nature. Firstly, we can explain the phenomenon of gravity. Without the cosmic ocean of Ether, gravity becomes a mystical thing. Then we can explain things like mass and inertia, cosmological red shift, gravitational waves, aberration of star light, Einstein cross etc etc without resorting to stupid and absurd propositions. I have explained all these at some or the other page on this blog.

      Liked by 2 people

    • drgsrinivas  On October 21, 2015 at 9:50 am

      Revealing the truth to the unspoilt minds is an easy and straight forward job. But in a society where truth has been buried and ridiculed by the authorities, resurrecting the truth becomes a tough task. In the latter situation, one needs to first talk about and expose each and every logical blunder committed by the authorities before truth can be made visible.

      And that’s what I was trying to do in the above post. I am not saying that ether wind and ether drag do not exist. I am only saying that our physicists don’t really understand them to be able to prove or disprove them.

      Firstly, the lack of interference between the two beams of light in MM experiment can be easily explained by the simple logic that the motion of a projectile gets affected by that of the source. (In fact if there is anything that Michelson’s experiment proved, it is only this: motion of light beams do get affected by the motion of the source. And that should have put a full stop to the theory of relativity). So it was wrong to claim the lack of interference observed in the MM experiment as proof of absence of Ether wind.

      And then, to save the Ether model, some physicists proposed ether drag as a possible explanation for the absence of ether wind. (The truth is that, as I have explained elsewhere on this blog, whenever a body moves through a fluid medium, it would experience fluid wind. And at the same time, the object will drag the fluid. So fluid drag doesn’t actually argue against the existence of fluid wind. That’s why I said “if one looks for Ether drag to explain the lack of Ether wind, that obviously shows one’s lack of understanding about both Ether drag and Ether wind.”)

      Finally, our physicists had wrongly interpreted ‘aberration of star light’ as proof against ether drag and thus killed the ether hypothesis forever.

      I know it isn’t easy to follow. Our physicists have messed up things to such a great extent!

      Liked by 2 people

  • Galacar  On October 23, 2015 at 12:01 am

    drgsrinivas wrote

    “Revealing the truth to the unspoilt minds is an easy and straight forward job. But in a society where truth has been buried and ridiculed by the authorities, resurrecting the truth becomes a tough task. In the latter situation, one needs to first talk about and expose each and every logical blunder committed by the authorities before truth can be made visible.”

    Very well said, very well!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jamie Savage  On November 4, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    The experiment didn’t refute Ether Theory. The results are misinterpreted because the light beam travels towards the mirror and back. If it moves faster towards a mirror it would then move slower away from that mirror, which cancels the additional velocity. Opps

    Liked by 1 person

    • drgsrinivas  On November 5, 2015 at 9:46 am

      True. Physicists misinterpreted MMX at every step and not just once. And they misinterpreted every experiment and not just MMX!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bill Green  On September 5, 2016 at 6:11 am

      What is sad is that Einstein and others used the MMX results to formulate Relativity. Imagine that! Using wrong results to justify a made-up theory. Then the press got wind (pardon my pun) of Relativity and ran with it and it became increasingly popular. Once it did there was no going back. Physicists couldn’t admit they were wrong to such a wonderful theory, could they? So they had to make up factors to justify their errant theory.


  • Tim  On March 16, 2016 at 7:10 am

    I am a layman trying to debunk relativists and I need your help. Which is more correct? The rotation of the earth on its axis causes the source of light to move and this invalidates the experiment? Or the layer of ether spinning around the world neutralises any effect on the light proton because it is not constant with regards to the frames of reference? Or both?


    • drgsrinivas  On March 17, 2016 at 6:46 pm

      Of course, the source moves with the Earth. But same is the case with the layer of Ether surrounding it. That is, the source and the Ether (that is in the same horizontal plane as the source) move with the same velocity. In other words, there would be no relative motion between the source and the layer of ether. So when you fire a photon horizontally, the photon travels in a straight line.
      photon fired in horizontal plane

      But same is not the case when you fire a photon vertically up into the sky. Because of the differential ether motion, the photon takes a curved path. Similarly photons that reach us from a distant star take a curved path.

      Having said that, our brains see them as coming from straight ahead in straight path. Thus differential Ether spinning model also explains the apparent shift in the position of stars without the absurd theory of relativity.

      I am not sure if that answers your question!


  • Mason  On March 21, 2016 at 11:57 pm


    I wanted to leave a comment here to tell you how much I have enjoyed reading the posts on your blog. I am a huge fan of the work of Nikola Tesla, and as someone who’s view of nature has not been corrupted by the nonsense taught by the masses, reading the content on your website has been a breath of fresh air to me. I wonder if you too have any interest in the work of Tesla and might have anything relevant to post about? Myself, I am mostly interested his work harnessing energy suspended in the ionosphere. I think that the suspension of this energy in the ionosphere makes perfect sense in the universal ether models that you have described, as the energy could only be suspended if it was resting with the mass of the suspending particles (possibly photons?).

    Regardless, I have loved your blog very much, and I will continue to follow along! Thank you for your work and I wish you all the best!


    Liked by 1 person

  • bimbomechanic  On April 4, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    What would happen if we thought the Earth was stationary, would this change how we approached relativity and the Micheal-Morsley experiment?


  • NATHAN NEIMAN CAVALCANTE  On May 4, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    In the MMX the calculations cannot be oversimplified. Oversimplification will lead to a fatal error, the length contraction. Paul Marmet proved in his paper wich was the main error. Michelson Morley didn’t take in account the effect of the 45 degrees moving mirrors reflections. Consequently there is no length contraction in the frame.
    To anyone interested in checking the calculations here is the link to Paul Marmet paper: http://newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html


  • timbobob  On May 5, 2016 at 11:46 am

    It clear that the Michelson experiments show that Relativity is false, but I also think that whenever we discuss the Michelson ether experiments it is very important to discuss BOTH the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MMX) experiment AND the 1925 Michelson-Gale (MGX) experiment and consider the ramifications of BOTH those experiments together. The 1887 MMX tested for the Earth’s REVOLUTION around the Sun, while the MGX tested for the Earth’s ROTATION on its axis. The MMX that tested for the Earth’s REVOLUTION found ALMOST zero ether wind. This ALMOST zero result can be interpreted not in only TWO ways, but in THREE ways:

    There is no ether
    The ether is dragged along with the Earth
    The Earth is not revolving around the Sun.

    If any scientific investigation is going to be honest and accurate, it important that ALL ALL ALL possible interpretations be placed on the table … regardless of how crazy they may sound or how much they seem to go against “established” assumptions. Isn’t that what we have been preaching? (Even the Relativists such as Einstein, Hawking, Hubble and countless other physicists have said that #3 is a scientifically valid option – I have over 40 such quotes available upon request – but they all rejected #3 SOLELY on philosophical grounds, which is NOT the scientific method.)

    In any case, the small measurement that the MMX did detect was just enough to show that the ether was at least present. We must not overlook this part of his experiment.

    HOWEVER, the results of the 1925 M-Gale experiment which tested for ROTATION revealed something quite the opposite of the MMX experiment. The MGX showed an almost 100% (97.45%) RELATIVE rotation of the Earth with the ether of space! Here, the only two options to choose from according to the classical Galilean law of relative motion are:

    The Earth is spinning on its axis at the approximate speed we would expect it to be. OR
    The ether (space) is spinning around a motionless Earth.

    When we take the results of BOTH of the Michelson experiments together (1887 & 1925) the most obvious and perplexing question that arises is: How can an almost ZERO ether wind be measured for an Earth revolving around the Sun, yet at the same time measure an almost 100% relative Earth-ether rotation? In other words, how can there be on the one hand no Revolution movement (thought a very slight ether presence) detected, but on the other hand a complete (relative) Rotation motion detected. Because there cannot be a Revolution of the Earth without a Rotation of the Earth.

    The main point is that nowhere in this very good and helpful blog have I seen the results and implications of the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment discussed, along with their implications when compared with the 1887 MMX. I would very much like to see some discussion about this, because the results could have profound implications in explaining many other things.


    • drgsrinivas  On May 20, 2016 at 9:40 pm

      I don’t think MM experiment was particularly designed for detecting ether wind caused by only revolution of earth. But anyway, the lack of interference in MM Experiment actually proves that the light beam’s motion gets affected by the motion of the source/interferometer and thus destroys the superstition of constant speed of light.

      As I have discussed above, whenever a body moves in a fluid medium, it experiences fluid wind and it drags the surrounding fluid with it. That is ‘wind’ and ‘drag’ phenomena always coexist. If there is no wind, there will be no drag and vice versa. So proposing ether drag to explain the lack of ether wind is rather illogical.

      Earth spinning in a stationary ether pool would explain gravity. In fact the phenomenon of gravitational attraction can be argued as proof of differential Ether drag. I think the scenario of ether spinning around a stationary earth would result in what may be called as gravitational repulsion i.e. objects would fly off and earth would undergo ‘erosion’ over time!

      Basically, whether it is MMX or MGX, there are simply incapable of detecting the Ether wind. The reason is that they are built upon a wrong premise. The lack of interference isn’t a proof of absence of ether wind. We could perform a similar experiment on the roof of a moving submarine: send two identical sound waves in two perpendicular directions. I am sure the returning sound waves will be of the same frequency!


    • Ralph Fiam  On December 18, 2016 at 6:51 pm

      TimobobL “Even the Relativists such as Einstein, Hawking, Hubble and countless other physicists have said that #3 is a scientifically valid option – I have over 40 such quotes available upon request…” I have come across a few, such as those in Einsteins biographies, but I would be interested in these other quotes, are they available online anywhere? Thanks


  • jack  On September 16, 2016 at 2:05 am

    It is impossible that a photon emitted will travel with its source. If that is the case, there will be no way to detect the original position of a moving object. Imagine a horizontally moving light source (of constant speed to the right) and a stationary source emit a photon to the north(up) direction at the same time when the two sources meet. If a photon does moves with its source, the photon from the moving source will continue to move to the east side, while the photon from the stationary source will only moves perpendicular to the north(up). That can not be the case. In addition, when the light source is moving circularly, IF the photon DOES inherits the velocity of the source, it will travel with a tangent velocity relative the the circular path. I don’t think that was ever been observed from orbiting stars. Explanation please. (* just to make it clear that I am not a believer of the constancy of the speed of light..)


  • Aleksandar  On January 5, 2017 at 11:52 pm

    I agree but do you still believe that Earth is moving? Is there any proof? What about Airy’s failure? Thak you.


    • Eudoxos  On February 4, 2017 at 2:59 am

      Concerning Airy’s experiment see:


  • Rob  On February 1, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    Yuri Ivanov’s ‘Rhythmodynamics’ is what you may be looking for. Ivanov’s shows rigorously that the MMX cannot prove the existence of ether if ether behaves like a fluid.


  • michael carman  On March 2, 2017 at 8:36 am

    i hate to bring it up, but i’m an ordinary person who is wondering how all this relates to a possible “flat earth”


  • Galacar  On March 3, 2017 at 11:53 am

    @michael carman

    People are waking up to the lies all around them, Some people don’t like this of course,
    So ‘they’ injected the ‘flat earth’ non-sense.into this world.
    So that real truth seekers can be associated with this non-sense.
    Because ‘they’ want that the real truth seekers, and yes it must be said are
    conspiracy theorists. not to be taken seriously by people.Why? because there IS a global conspiracy to enslave us all.

    (don’t believe me? That is ok. But please do your reseearch.)

    So, please don’t take the flat-earth nonsense seriously, mate!

    My two cents


    Liked by 1 person

  • World of Piano  On May 14, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    It is pretty obvious that only supportive comments are allowed through by the blogger


    • Angus  On May 14, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      Indeed. How can one have a useful discussion if it’s simply an echo chamber>


  • King  On May 19, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Thats bullshit!! There are myriads of unsurpoting comments here!


  • King  On May 19, 2017 at 9:57 am

    Even if that were true, relativists never allow dissent in their journals! People with differing views (like Alton Arp) are fired from ‘scientists’ club. Then relativists, big bangers, quantum mechanists etc now declare that what proves relativity etc is the fact that all ‘scientists’ accept it!

    So how else do people with different view voice their oppinions? Obviously in personal blogs etc. So why the hell do a relativist want to come here when they already own popular science media and they don’t allow other voices there??

    Liked by 1 person

    • Angus  On May 19, 2017 at 2:32 pm

      I wrote a reply in December last year, and nothing appeared. Suddenly am able to post. Anyway, this forum is moderated, and moderation runs the risk of curtailing useful discussion.

      Re differing views, the important point is to provide articulate, evidenced and reasoned arguments. When you contradict the mainstream understanding, you are under the burden of making your case.

      As someone who considers relativity as a good model of the physical reality of the world, I come here to discuss those with different views. Because, firstly it is niche to disagree with relativity, and secondly, journals are not the place for casual discussion.


  • Jose  On May 21, 2017 at 4:27 am

    I like the explanation of the aether wind, however I have another alternative theory about the aether (or anything with mechanical properties), the luminiferous aether would be gravity field (longitudinal tension of the gravitational aether),
    You may find it in http://www.molwick.com/en/relativity/004-michelsonmorley.html

    And regarding gravity probe B there is little surprise because I believe there is no frame-dragging effect of gravity on mass, only on electromagnetic energy!
    NASA error?
    An interesting experiment!
    Understanding Gravity Probe-B experiment without math


  • Otto  On June 20, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    The book “Unbelievable” demonstrates why and how Science went in the wrong direction. Really unbelievable!!

    Click to access Unbelievable.pdf


  • Nigel Beckwith (@NigelBeckwith1)  On June 24, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Many followers of the Flat Earth theory are using this experiment to suggest that it shows the earth is not spinning! This is astonishing.


  • Toni  On July 15, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    Michelson-Morley experiment has proved that the ether is stationary relative to earth.


  • orangemonkeybat  On September 11, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    So, what would happen if they repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment from the space station? That would eliminate Earth’s ether drag yes? Seems this would be an easy way to confirm the ether no?


  • Savvy  On January 7, 2018 at 10:46 am

    I would agree that experimental results are purposely interpreted to suit their demi god einstein.
    tho im not sold on the ether model as of present


  • nasser  On September 13, 2018 at 7:40 am

    Thank you for this. Until finding this article, I thought I was the only one who was mystified by assumptions ( on ether drag and ether wind) and subsequent the conclusions. They most annoying part is debating with 2 bit grade students ,many of whom don’t even know anything about ether drag and wind blurting out ” but M&M experiment has proved that ether does not exist. ”

    I will read other posts to get other perspective.


  • John-Erik Persson  On February 27, 2020 at 11:17 pm

    It is difficult to disprove no EXISTENCE, since no ether would probably mean no evidence to that effect. Fixed mirrors in MMX means fixed WAVE FRONTS or wave front normal and not MOTION defined by wave PLUS ether wind. Mirrors are blind to ether wind. Therefore, no effect of ether wind in TRANSVERSE arm.
    Two opposite forces between atoms in a crystal control separations between atoms in a crystal and are effected by ether wind in the same way as in two opposite directions of light between mirrors in MMX and defining 2-way light speed. Therefore, compensated effect of ether wind in the LONGITUDINAL arm of MMX.
    Therefore, NO OBSERVABLE effect of ether wind in MMX. It is useless.
    Transverse ether is INSIDE the wave front and cannot tilt a wave front in transverse arm, as well as in STELLAR ABERRATION. Instead, an UNCHANGED (to Sun) wave front must have a changed representation (to Earth). Therefore, stellar aberration is an ILLUSION (in the same way as Ptolemajor’s epicircles).

    Perhaps this link is of interest:

    Click to access Persson_Is_the_Ether_Wind_D.pdf


  • John-Erik Persson  On February 27, 2020 at 11:19 pm

    Perhaps this link is of interest:

    Click to access Persson_Is_the_Ether_Wind_D.pdf


  • John-Erik Persson  On February 28, 2020 at 10:59 pm

    Perhaps i should try to be more specific regarding the WAVE MODEL.
    Mirrors in MMX interferometers and in stellar detecting telescopes are BLIND to the local ether wind, and can only see DYNAMIC waves. Relevant description of light becomes the ray concept NOT including transverse components in ether wind. The ray is NOT physical, but a mathematical description of a physical reality in the wave front.
    Influenced by particle based thinking the beam direction, including transverse ether wind, has been. The distinction between beam and ray has not been understood.
    CONCLUSION: The ether wind has no effect in the transverse arm in MMX, and cannot cause stellar aberration.
    The behavior in transverse arm can be illustrated by seeing that the distant mirror introduces a virtual image of the light source at doubled range, that is FIXED in equipment frame. So, returned light is parallel to the distant mirror and therefore FIXED in equipment frame. No tilting and no ether wind effect.
    So, beam depends on ether wind – ray does not.
    The confusion ray/beam produced the ILLUSION of particles in light, and also the ILLUSION of dilation of time. Instead of time dilation the GPS clocks are sensitive to ether wind. Satellite motion 3.87 km/s (SRT). Radial ether wind 11.2 km/s (GRT; escape velocity), explaining gravity.


    • michael carman  On March 1, 2020 at 11:39 am

      could you be a bit more clear to a person who has had college but not too much???


  • John-Erik Persson  On March 4, 2020 at 4:52 pm

    A detailed description is available on a link in my previous post.
    Here is another link that also can be of interest.
    With best regards from _______________ John-Erik


  • michael  On July 19, 2021 at 1:26 am

    Dear Srinivasa (I hope this is your first name as mine is Michael), I also don’t agree with Einstein-Lorentz relativity, but I think you have a mistake. The Sagnac effect (1913) and it’s application to the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment (1925) showed that light does not propagate like a projectile or a mechanical wave. These experiments and also the Fizeaux exp (1851), proved the invalidity of relativity and also the uniqueness of light propagation. Think about it.


  • Laurence Crossen  On August 17, 2022 at 12:19 am

    Yes, relativity is nonsense. The second postulate is false because the principle of invariance requires that the light shares the momentum of the source. This is true of waves or particles, as shown by ambulance sirens. Light speed is not constant because it must be subject to relative motion. Your discussion seems to miss that the parallel beam is delayed much more than the perpendicular beam (which does cover more distance due to its angle as in the Pythagorean theorem). If the MMX does not detect a full 30 km/sec wind, it must be eddying and moving in various ways. This would create all kinds of distortions of the light from the stars that we do not detect.


  • Shane Isaac  On February 14, 2023 at 6:52 am

    A layman here….

    Will a bullet fired northward in a moving train travelling westward, still projects north-west trajectory? (Shot fired from one side to the opposite side inside the train).

    I am still trying to figure out how you can measure the earth’s revolving around the sun by measuring a light beam which source and target are both in the same vicinity, on earth.

    Please be kind….;p


    • drgsrinivas  On February 16, 2023 at 3:33 pm

      From the perspective of a stationary platform observer, the bullet obviously travels in the north-west direction. Sorry I didn’t get your second question..🤔


      • Shane Isaac  On February 16, 2023 at 4:06 pm

        Thank you Doctor for your response.

        Kindly allow me time to search the subject matter more otherwise I would only ask more confusing questions.

        Basically, if wanting to see whether the earth is revolving around the sun or not, would it not be realistic to direct the light beam towards the sun (a target accurately aligning the sun in its crosshairs)? Instead of beaming light from point A to point B (target) which are both on the surface of the earth itself…

        I am referring to the Michelson Experiment inteferometer equipment.

        Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • drgsrinivas  On February 17, 2023 at 3:04 pm

        Shane, my sincere advice to the novice/ unspoilt minds: don’t waste your time reading Michelson experiment. It exists only to confuse and mislead people on the issue of Ether. I have put it here only for the spoilt science minds who wrongly claim that stupid experiment as disproof of Ether.
        Double slit experiment actually provides a simple and direct proof of existence of Ether. If you wish to know about ether, just read about double slit experiment on this blog. Thank you


  • Bill Green  On February 19, 2023 at 1:28 am

    Dr. Srinivas, with all due respect, I believe studying the Michelson-Morley experiment is of great importance, even if for the reason you give above. What’s more, so much false science we find today is based upon the erroneous “results” given by this experiment.
    When Dayton Miller proved this experiment wrong, Einstein said that if Miller was correct, then his own relativity theory would “collapse like a house of cards.” Knowing just how erroneous the Michelson-Morley experiment is gives us knowledge of how to educate those who may believe in Einstein’s erroneous science.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.