reerer

The beginning of the end of trump. I feel sorry for him but maybe he will have a chance to improve his golf swing. He swings like Nixon.

Someone is suggesting that I am not the author of these post; henceforth, I will demestate that I am in fact the author by deriving from skrech. 4 days 6 hours and 45 minutes-----earth to the moon 345,600sec---21,600--------2700 = 369,900 seconds total ______________________________________________________ distance to the moon ------ 363,104,000 m __________________________________________________ velocity of the craft---363,104,000 m divided by 369,900 s = 983 m/s ---------------------------------------------------- Apollo Command and Service Module weight Command Module weight and Service Module wet (14,690 kg) Lander wet---(16,400 kg) Total weight of craft---------> 31,090 kg. --------------------------------------------------------- Kinetic energy: .5 (31,090 kg) (983)^2 = 15,020,962,505 joules 42.8 MJ per kg----------42,000,000 J for a kg of kerosene rocket fuel. (15,020,962,505 joules) divided by 42,000,000 J to determine the amount of fuel to achieve velocity. 358 kg of kerosene. I have calculated the effencicy of a rocket engine using the Saturn rocket at .5 % yet on the NASA site someone is posting that the effenccy is 70%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lorentz alters the dimensions of Michelson's experimental apparatus to reverse the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, (Michelson, p. 120). "§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2 have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment, in which two rays of light interfered after having traversed rather long paths, the one parallel to the direction of the earth's motion, and the other perpendicular to it. In order to explain the negative result of this experiment Fitzgerald and myself have supposed that, in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9). Lorentz is reversing the negative result of Michelson's ether experiment to justify the existence of the ether by contracting the length of the interferometer's armature in the x-direction using the constant magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector px but according to Michelson, initially the parallel light ray's velocity is increased by propagating in the direction of the ether wind but after the parallel light ray is reflected by the mirror, the parallel light ray is propagating in the opposite direction that would reduce the velocity of the parallel light ray and cancel the test of the ether wind. In Michelson-Morley ether experiment, numerous reflection by the parallel light ray are used to conceal the cancelation problem but the net result of all the reflections of Michelson-Morley experiment would also cancel the test of the ether wind. In addition, Michelson's experiment is based on Fresnel's diffraction effect but Fresnel's describes diffraction uses interfering light waves that produce a diffraction pattern projected on a diffraction screen yet Michelson's interference effect is viewed using a small telescope pointed at the beam splitter since the two light rays of Michelson's experiment cannot produce a diffraction pattern projected on a screen. Experimentally, when two laser beam's intensities are combined, no interference effect is formed on a diffraction screen since the formation of wave interference requires an ether, composed of matter, that does not physically exist. Plus, Michelson and Michelson-Morley ether experiments are testing for the existence of the ether but both experiments are also using the ether to form interfering light waves that are used to produced an interference effect that is used to test for the existence of the ether which is in violation of scientific method. Also, the velocity of light is four order of magnitude greater than the maximum velocity of the ether wind (Vmax = 30,462 m/s) formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions; consequently, the ether wind cannot produce the shift of the interference effect that is used to justify the existence of the ether. In addition, Michelson experiment is based on a constant magnitude of the ether wind but at the surface of the earth, the magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector px that produces the ether wind is not constant.. At 6:00 pm, the magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity px is 462 m/s (fig 11); at 7:00 pm, the magnitude of px increases to 5,077 m/s. At midnight, the earth's yearly tangential velocity vector px is 30,462 m/s; consequently, the earth's tangential velocity vector px that forms the ether wind increases from 462 m/s to 30,462 m/s (6:00 pm - 12:00 am) yet Lorentz's transformation is based on a constant magnitude of the ether wind since a varying ether wind as time increases would result in a shift of the interference effect. Time velocity _________________________________ 6:00 pm 462 m/s 7:00 pm 5,077 m/s 8:00 pm 10,154 m/s 9:00 pm 15,231 m/s 10:00 pm 20,308 m/s 11:00 pm 25,385 m/s 12:00 am 30,462 m/s Are the values of the velocities correct? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

§ 1. Maxwell's Structure of Light The electromagnetic transverse wave equations of light are derived using Maxwell's equations, ∇ x E = - dB/dt........................∇ x B = 1/c (dE/dt).....................................73a,b Maxwell's curl equations (equ 73a,b) are expanded to form, dEz/dy - dEy/dz = - dBx/dt...........................................................................74 dEx/dz - dEz/dx = - dBy/dt...........................................................................75 dEy/dx - dEx/dy = - dBz/dt...........................................................................76 ........................................................... dBz/dy - dBy/dz = 1/c (dEx/dt)....................................................................77 dBx/dz - dBz/dx = 1/c (dEy/dt)....................................................................78 dBy/dx - dBx/dy = 1/c (dEz/dt)..................................................... ..............79 The z-direction electric transverse wave equations is derived using equations 74 and 78 by eliminating dEy/dz and dBz/dx to form (Jenkins, p. 410), dEy/dz = 1/c (dBx/dt)..............................dBx/dz = 1/c (dEy/dt)...................80a,b Differentiating equation 80a, with the respect to d/dz, and equation 80b with respect to d/dt produces (Condon, p, 1-108), d2Ey/d2z = 1/c (d2Bx/dtdz)......................d2Bx/dtdz = 1/c (d2Ey/d2t)...........81a,b Equating equations 81a,b, d2Ey/d2z = 1/c2 (d2Ey/d2t)...........................................................................82 Differentiating equation 82a, with the respect to d/dt, and equation 82b with respect to d/dz produces , d2Ey/dtdz = 1/c (d2Bx/d2t)......................d2Bx/d2z = 1/c (d2Ey/dtdz)...........83a,b Equating equations 83a,b forms, d2Bx/d2z = 1/c2 (d2Bx/d2t)..........................................................................84 Equations 82 and 84 are used to derive the z direction electromagnetic transverse wave equations of light (fig 17), Ey = Eo cos(kz - wt) ĵ ..............................................................................85 Bx = Bo cos(kz -wt) î ................................................................................86 In the derivation of equations 80a,b, 14 of the 18 differential components that constitute Maxwell's equations are eliminated since an electromagnetic field within a volume forms a horizontal wave. What do you think of the mathematic that is being depicted?

§ 1. Maxwell's Structure of Light The electromagnetic transverse wave equations of light are derived using Maxwell's equations, ∇ x E = - dB/dt........................∇ x B = 1/c (dE/dt).....................................73a,b Maxwell's curl equations (equ 73a,b) are expanded to form, dEz/dy - dEy/dz = - dBx/dt...........................................................................74 dEx/dz - dEz/dx = - dBy/dt...........................................................................75 dEy/dx - dEx/dy = - dBz/dt...........................................................................76 ........................................................... dBz/dy - dBy/dz = 1/c (dEx/dt)....................................................................77 dBx/dz - dBz/dx = 1/c (dEy/dt)....................................................................78 dBy/dx - dBx/dy = 1/c (dEz/dt)..................................................... ..............79 The z-direction electric transverse wave equations is derived using equations 74 and 78 by eliminating dEy/dz and dBz/dx to form (Jenkins, p. 410), dEy/dz = 1/c (dBx/dt)..............................dBx/dz = 1/c (dEy/dt)...................80a,b Differentiating equation 80a, with the respect to d/dz, and equation 80b with respect to d/dt produces (Condon, p, 1-108), d2Ey/d2z = 1/c (d2Bx/dtdz)......................d2Bx/dtdz = 1/c (d2Ey/d2t)...........81a,b Equating equations 81a,b, d2Ey/d2z = 1/c2 (d2Ey/d2t)...........................................................................82 Differentiating equation 82a, with the respect to d/dt, and equation 82b with respect to d/dz produces , d2Ey/dtdz = 1/c (d2Bx/d2t)......................d2Bx/d2z = 1/c (d2Ey/dtdz)...........83a,b Equating equations 83a,b forms, d2Bx/d2z = 1/c2 (d2Bx/d2t)..........................................................................84 Equations 82 and 84 are used to derive the z direction electromagnetic transverse wave equations of light (fig 17), Ey = Eo cos(kz - wt) ĵ ..............................................................................85 Bx = Bo cos(kz -wt) î ................................................................................86 In the derivation of equations 80a,b, 14 of the 18 differential components that constitute Maxwell's equations are eliminated since an electromagnetic field within a volume forms a horizontal wave. What do you think of the mathematic that is being depicted?

Fresnel derives a diffraction intensity equation by summating the interfering light waves' amplitudes, at the diffraction screen, using a line integral (equ 1). "Hence the intensity of the vibration at P resulting from all these small disturbances is { [ ʃ dz cos (π z2 (a + b) / abλ) ]2 + [ ʃ dz sin (π z2 (a + b) / abλ)]2 }1/2 "..................................1 (Fresnel, 53). Fresnel's derivation of the diffraction intensity equation is based on a line integral that represents the length of the wave AMI where dz is a segment of the wave AMI. Fresnel uses the line integral to summate the interfering light waves' amplitudes at the diffraction screen point P (fig 7) but the point P on the diffraction screen where the interfering light waves' amplitudes are summating is not within the limits of Fresnel's line integral (equ 1). In addition, during the diffraction effect of light, the crests and nodes of Fresnel's propagating light waves propagate in the forward direction. At the diffraction screen point P, the propagating light waves' amplitudes would oscillate forming an average resultant amplitude of zero, as time increases, that would eliminate the diffraction pattern. Furthermore, Fresnel is using the interfering light waves' amplitudes, at a point P, on the diffraction screen to represent the intensity (energy) of the diffraction effect which depicts a light energy that is dependent on the wave amplitude which conflicts with Lenard's photoelectric effect that proves light is composed of particles that light energy is dependent on only the frequency. The formation of the small rectangular aperture diffraction pattern (fig 8) is represented using wave interference but the destructive interference of the light waves' amplitudes (energy) used to form the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern represents the destruction of the intensity of light; furthermore, the destruction of the light waves' amplitudes (intensity) would result in a reduction in the total light intensity of the diffraction pattern since the destroyed light waves' amplitudes do not contribute to the total light intensity of the diffraction pattern yet more than 80% of the small rectangular aperture diffraction pattern is composed of dark areas which would result in at least a 60% reduction in the total light intensity of the diffraction pattern yet experimentally, the total light intensity that enters a small rectangular aperture (dt = 1s) is equal to the total light intensity of the diffraction pattern. Fresnel is using spherical waves formed along the wave AMI to derive the diffraction intensity equation. The interfering spherical waves' maximum amplitudes are dependent on the inverse of the distance. The intensity formed by the spherical waves is dependent on I = (U)2 where U is the equation of a spherical wave U = A cos(kr)/r. Using the distance r1 = .1 mm where the spherical waves' maximum amplitudes are formed near the wave AMI, and, the distance of r2 = 5 cm represents the distance from the wave AMI to the diffraction screen. The maximum total intensity of light formed by the spherical waves just after leaving the wave AMI, using cos2(kr) = 1/2, is I = [A cos(kr)/r]2 = K/(.0001)2 = K(10-8), and, the total intensity at the diffraction screen is I = [A cos(kr)/r]2 = K/(.05)2 = K(2.5 x 10-3); consequently, the total intensity at the diffraction screen decrease by the factor of 40,000 using Fresnel's spherical wave interference mechanism.

I am making up the numbers and figure numbers as I go along. Sorry for the confussion.

Davisson–Germer (1927) electron scattering experiment is used to justify electron wave interference but the destruction of electrons to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern represents the arbitrary destruction of electrons. de Broglie's electron matter wave is used to represent the structure of a Bohr atom's electron (fig 12) but de Broglie's continuous electron matter wave conflicts with the particle structure of an electron. Furthermore, protons with like charges cannot existing in the confinement of a nuclei to form a multi-electron atom. Neutrons are used to neutralize protons' electric fields which would also results in the elimination of the proton-electron force that forms the structure of a multi-proton atom. Furthermore, the atomic electron matter wave cannot be represented in a Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinate system; consequently, the atomic electron matter wave is transformed into a particle-in-a-box electron matter wave (fig 13) and represented with Schrödinger's wave equation, -(h2/2m)∇"Ψ(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z)Ψ(x,y,z) = EΨ(x,y,z)...................................................58 Schrodinger's wave equation is used to derive a wave function Ψ = Σ c u exp[(2πEt/h + θ)i]............(Schrodinger, p. 1066)......................................................59 "The wave-function physical means and determines a continuous distribution of electricity in space, the fluctuations of which determine the radiation by laws of ordinary electrodynamics." (Schrödinger, Abstract). "The fluctuation of the charge will be governed by the Eq. 28, applied to the special case of the hydrogen atom. To find the radiation, that by electrodynamics will originate from these fluctuating charges, we have simply to calculate the rectangular components of the total electric moment by multiplying (28) by x, y, z respectively, then integrating over space, e.g." (Schrodinger, p. 1066). "1. The theory which is reported in the following pages is based on the very interesting and fundamental researches of L. de Broglie' on what he called "phase-waves" ("ondes de phase") and thought to be associated with the motion'of material points, especially with the motion of an electron or proton. The point of view taken here, which was first published in a series of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing but, wave-systems. This extreme conception may be wrong, indeed it does not offer as yet the slightest explanation of why only such wave-systems seem to be realized in nature as correspond to mass-points of definite mass and charge. On the other hand the opposite point of view, which neglects altogether the waves discovered by L. de Broglie and treats only the motion of material points, has led to such grave difficulties in the theory of atomic mechanics —and this after century-long development and refinement— that it seems not only not dangerous but even desirable, for a time at least, to lay an exaggerated stress on its counterpart. In doing this we must of course realize that a thorough correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by a harmonic union of these two extremes." (Schrödinger, p. 1049-50). "As an alternative, in 1926 German physicist Max Born sharply refined Schrodinger's interpretation of an electron wave, and it is his interpretation--amplified by Bohr and his colleagues--that is still with us today......He asserted that an electron wave must be interpreted from the standpoint of probability." (Greene, p. 105). "Just a few months after de Broglie's suggestion, Schrodinger took the decisive step toward this end by determining an equation that governs the shape and the evolution of probability waves, or as they came to be known, wave functions." (Greene, p. 107). "Schrodinger, de Broglie, and Born explained this phenomenon by associating a probability wave to each electron." (Greene, p. 109).how trimmed content Schrödinger is structurally representing an electron that has a particle structure and mass with a massless electric wave depicted with the wave function; consequently, Schrödinger's electric wave is transformed into an electron probability wave and represented in a spherical coordinate system but an electron position probability is not a wave structure since an electron position probability can only represent a positive value or zero and cannot depict a negative value that is required in representing destructive wave interference used to derive the equations of the atomic orbitals. Furthermore, the representation of a plane wave equation of the electric wave that has a constant maximum amplitude in a spherical coordinate system produces a mathematical catastrophe since the maximum amplitude of a spherical wave is not constant.

I rewrote it. Maybe this will clarify the problem. § 6. Michelson In Michelson's paper, "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Lumiferous Ether" (1881), Michelson tests for Fresnel's stationary ether composed of matter using an interferometer. "The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space. According to Fresnel, the ether, which is enclosed in optical media, partakes of the motion of these media, to an extent depending on their indices of refraction. For air, this motion would be but a small fraction of that of the air itself and will be neglected." (Michelson, p. 120). "Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120). "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." (Michelson, p. 128). According to Michelson, a stationary ether, composed of matter, exists in all of stellar space. At the surface of the earth, the earth's daily and yearly motions interaction with Michelson's stationary celestial ether forms an ether wind which Michelson's experiment is testing. An arc lamp and a beam splitter are used to form two light rays. One light ray propagates in the direction parallel to the ether wind and the second light ray propagates perpendicular to the ether wind. Initially only the parallel light ray is affected by the ether wind since the parallel light ray is propagating in the direction of the ether wind which would increase the velocity of the parallel light ray. The perpendicular light ray is unaffected by the ether wind since the perpendicular light ray is propagating perpendicular to the direction of the ether wind; consequently, the ether wind would not affect the velocity of the perpendicular light ray. Both the parallel and perpendicular light rays are combined to form an interference effect of Michelson's interferometer. Rotating Michelson's experimental apparatus, at certain angles, both light rays velocities would be affected by the ether wind that would result in the shift of the interference effect and verify the existence of the ether but the result was negative. Lorentz reverses the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, but there are numerous problems regarding Michelson's experiment. First, according to Michelson, initially the parallel light ray's velocity +v is increased by propagating in the direction of the ether wind but after the parallel light ray propagates in the opposite direction the parallel light ray's velocity decreases -v which cancels the test of the ether wind (v - v = 0). Michelson-Morley uses numerous reflections to conceal the cancelation problem but the net result of the all the reflections [N(v - v) = 0] of Michelson-Morley experiment would also cancel the test of the ether wind. In addition, Michelson experiment is based on Fresnel's diffraction effect that interfering light waves produce the diffraction pattern projected on a diffraction screen yet Michelson's interference effect is viewed using a small telescope pointed at the beam splitter since the two light rays of Michelson's experiment cannot produce a diffraction pattern projected on a screen. Example, when two coherent laser beam's intensities are combined, no interference effect is formed on a diffraction screen since the formation of wave interference requires an ether, composed of matter, that does not physically exist (vacuum). Plus, Michelson ether experiment is testing for the existence of the ether but both experiments are also using the ether to form interfering light waves that are used to produced an interference effect that is used to test for the existence of the ether which is in violation of scientific method. Also, the velocity of light is four order of magnitude greater than the maximum velocity of the ether wind (Vmax = 30,462 m/s) formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions; consequently, the ether wind cannot produce the shift of the interference effect that is used to justify the existence of the ether. Furthermore, at the surface of the earth, Huygens-Fresnel ether is stationary but Michelson's is representing a stationary stellar ether; the ether cannot be stationary both in all of stellar space and at the surface of the earth, at the same time, because of the earth's daily and yearly motions. Also, Michelson's experiment is based on a ether wind that has a constant magnitude, at the surface of the earth but the ether wind, formed by the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, at the surface of the earth, is not constant. At a point on the surface of the earth, at 6:00 pm, the magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector that forms the ether wind is 462 m/s (fig 7), and, increases to 5,077 m/s at 7:00 pm. At midnight, the earth's tangential velocity vector is 30,462 m/s; consequently, the magnitude of the ether wind increases from 462 m/s to 30,462 m/s (6:00 pm - 12:00 am) yet Michelson's experiment is based on a constant magnitude of the ether wind. Moreover, Michelson's experiment is unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum proves Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist. Time velocity ______________________ 6:00 pm 462 m/s 7:00 pm 5,077 m/s 8:00 pm 10,154 m/s 9:00 pm 15,231 m/s 10:00 pm 20,308 m/s 11:00 pm 25,385 m/s 12:00 am 30,462 m/s .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "Michelson did not conclude that the Earth travels at zero speed through the aether; he concluded, rather, that despite the care and precautions taken the device was too susceptible to extraneous facts, such as temperature and vibration, and was not suitable for measuring that speed. His exploration filed, he thought, to yield the interesting data he had hoped for. He could have sought an explanation for his 'null' outcome other than the inadequacy of his interferometer. If he had had sufficient confidence in the non-existence of the effect he tried to measure, he might have looked for a theoretical explanation. As it was, within a few years Albert Einstein had developed a theory from which it followed that the looked-for effect does not exist. Not that his theory ended the exploration. For perhaps, despite Einstein's theory, Michelson's effect does exist and it really was the inadequacies of his device which prevented him from detecting it. There have been enough surprise in the history of physics to make us cautious in ruling out the possibility of such a result (Collins and Pinch 1993: ch 2)."(Gower, p. 241). "More artificial theories have been tried out, assuming that the real truth lies somewhere between these two limiting cases: that the ether is only partially carried by the moving bodies. But they all failed! Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving CS with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful. Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative." (Weaver, p. 145). ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To calculate the wavelength do you not have to have a wave structure? And a wavelength of 3 x 10^7 m would be larger than the diameter of the earth! Is that seem odd. Can you name an entity other than a gravity wave that has a wavelength close to 10^7 m?

Everything that I post, the author is me. To measure the distance of a 4.22 ly star using the earth's orbital diameter as the parallax reference distance requires a telescopic resolution of .00126 arcsec which is 79 times more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec). The Hipparcos telescope is used to justify the measurement of the distance to a 4.22 light year star since the Hipparcos is described with a resolution of .001 arcsec but the Hubble's mirror diameter is 7.9 feet which is eight times larger than the Hipparacos mirror diameter (11 inches) yet the Hipparcos is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble which is not physically possible. I predict that the maximum resolution of an optical reflection telescope is .1 arcsec since the Webb has the resolution of .1 arcsec and has a mirror diameter of 21 feet. The most powerful telescope known to man is the Hubble. The maximum distance to a star calculated using the Hubble is, A/θ = B = (1.4 x 1010 m) (3600) / (.1 arcsec) = .5.04 x 1014m = .05327 light years....................115 The propagation of the Sun through the stellar universe is used to increase the value of the parallax reference distance A to form a Hubble resolution of .001 arcsec but parallax is based on the stars of the stellar universe that are stationary which also includes the Sun which proves the Hubble's resolution is .1 arcsec. Even with a resolution of .001 arcsecs the maximum distance to determine the distance to any of the stars of the celestial universe would be limited to 4.22 ly; consequently, if the distance to a 4.22 ly star cannot be determine than the distance to a star more than 350 light years from the earth also cannot be measured no matter what method is used. A dimming method is used to determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula but the Hubble proves the intensity of a star does not vary. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The photographic images of the Eagle Nebula obtained using the Spitzer UV space telescope were created using computer induced images since to determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula using the earth orbital diameter A and the distance to a 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula B would require a resolution of A/B = (1.4 x 1010 m) / (6.6 x 1019 m) = 2.12 x 10-10 degrees or 7.62 x 10-7 arcsec. Yet the Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec and the Spitzer has a resolution of 1 arcsec; consequently, astronomers cannot determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula. A dimming method is used to determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula but the Hubble proves the intensity of a star does not vary. If my derivation are incorrect that I wrote, I admit that I am wrong which is hope will help in the discussion.

Yes, I admit that I do not understand this statement "We also know that mass is a form of energy. But that doesn't mean that energy has mass." that appears to be a contradiction and I certainly acknowledge that if I am wrong that it is a mistakes.

I was thinking of what you had written and came up with this: Using c + v to represent the parallel light ray propagating toward the mirror in the direction of the ether wind, and, c - v to represent the parallel light ray propagating in the opposite direction of the ether wind where v represents the magnitude of the ether wind. The effect of the light ray propagating in both directions is represented with: (c + v) - (c - v) = 2v................................................1 But v represents the velocity of the ether wind. So what happen to the velocity of light? The problem is that this method is using the reflection as a separate effect when in fact they are the same; therefore, the real representation would be : c + v - v = c..............................................................2 which represents the Michelson's cancelation problem. For Michelson-Morley experiment we can add N to equation 2 c + N(v - v) = c..............................................................3 where N represents the number of reflections of Michelson-Morley experiment.

I am the author of everything I post except for the quotations. Example, the equations of the following derivation are not mine but everything else I wrote, personally. Swear to God. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The quantum mechanic step potential method is used to derive the transmission and reflection equations (Eisberg, p. 211), (McGervey, p. 102). The interaction of the incident, reflection and transmission light waves at the surface interface (x = 0) is represented with (fig 18), Ioe-ik1x + Roeik1x = Toe-ik2x ....................................................125 Using x = 0 in equation 125 the following equation is formed, Io + Ro = To........................................................................126 Differentiating equations 125 with respect to d/dx then using x = 0 forms, k1Io - k1Ro = k2To...............................................................127 Replacing k with n since k is proportional to n equation 127 forms, n1Io - n1Ro = n2To..............................................................128 Equations 127 and 128 are used in the derivation of the transmission and reflection equations. t = 2n1 / (n1 + n2) ..............................................................129 r = (n2 - n1) / (n1 + n2) ......................................................130 Using n1 = 1 and n2 = 1.5 in equation 128, Io - Ro = (1.5)To ..............................................................131 Using a air/glass interface, the difference of the incident and reflection light waves' maximum amplitudes (equ 131) is greater then the sum (equ 126) which is mathematically invalid and proves the quantum mechanics step potential derivation of the transmission and reflection equations using equations 129 and 130 is invalid and I certainly acknowledge that if I am wrong that it is a mistake to be wrong.

According to Michelson, a stationary ether, composed of matter, exists in all of stellar space. At the surface of the earth, the earth daily and yearly rotational motions interaction with Michelson's stationary celestial ether forms an ether wind which Michelson's experiment is testing. An arc lamp and a beam splitter are used to form two light rays. One light ray propagates in the direction parallel to the ether wind and the second light ray propagates perpendicular to the ether wind. Initially only the parallel light ray is affected by the ether wind since the parallel light ray is propagating in the direction of the ether wind which would increase the velocity of the parallel light ray.The perpendicular light ray is unaffected by the ether wind since the perpendicular light ray is propagating perpendicular to the direction of the ether wind; consequently, the ether wind would not affect the velocity of the perpendicular light ray. Both the parallel and perpendicular light rays are combined to form an interference effect of Michelson's interferometer. Rotating Michelson's experimental apparatus, at certain angles, both light rays velocities would be affected by the ether wind that would result in the shift of the interference effect and verify the existence of the ether but the result was negative. Lorentz and Einstein reverses the negative result of Michelson and Michelson-Morley experiment to justify the ether but there are numerous problems regarding Michelson's experiment. First, according to Michelson, initially the parallel light ray's velocity is increased by propagating in the direction of the ether wind but after the parallel light ray is reflected by the mirror, the parallel light ray is propagating in the opposite direction that would reduce the velocity of the parallel light ray and cancel the test of the ether wind. In Michelson-Morley ether experiment, numerous reflection by the parallel light ray is used to conceal the cancelation problem but the net result of the all the reflections of Michelson-Morley experiment would also cancel the test of the ether wind. In addition, Michelson experiment is based on Fresnel's diffraction effect but Fresnel's describes diffraction uses interfering light waves that produce a diffraction pattern projected on a diffraction screen yet Michelson's interference effect is viewed using a small telescope pointed at the beam splitter since the two light rays of Michelson's experiment cannot produce a diffraction pattern projected on a screen. Experimentally, when two laser beam's intensities are combined, no interference effect is formed on a diffraction screen since the formation of wave interference requires an ether, composed of matter, that does not physically exist. Plus, Michelson and Michelson-Morley ether experiments are testing for the existence of the ether but both experiments are also using the ether to form interfering light waves that are used to produced an interference effect that is used to test for the existence of the ether which is a violation of scientific method. Also, the velocity of light is four order of magnitude greater than the maximum velocity of the ether wind (Vmax = 30,462 m/s) formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions; consequently, the ether wind cannot produce the shift of the interference effect that is used to justify the existence of the ether. Furthermore, Michelson is creating a contradiction regarding the motion of the ether. At the surface of the earth, Huygens-Fresnel ether is stationary but Michelson's is representing a stationary stellar ether which conflicts with Huygens' ether that is stationary at the surface of the earth. Also, Michelson's experiment is based on a ether wind that has a constant magnitude, at the surface of the earth but the ether wind, formed by the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, at the surface of the earth, is not constant. At a point on the surface of the earth (6:00 pm), the magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector that forms the ether wind is 462 m/s (fig 7), and, increases to 5,077 m/s at 7:00 pm. At midnight, the earth's tangential velocity vector is 30,462 m/s; consequently, the magnitude of the ether wind increases from 462 m/s to 30,462 m/s (6:00 pm - 12:00 am) yet Michelson's experiment is based on a constant magnitude of the ether wind. Moreover, Michelson's experiment is unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum proves Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist.