van Dongen, Jeroen (2009) On the role of the Michelson-Morley experiment:
Einstein in Chicago.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004778/
*******

What a mess!

So in the end, is or is not "constant" that beloved "c"!? And what AE did or did not know at that 1905? And what that has to do with any "physics" at all?


Blessings

Another fairly typical statement, the above reference says, by the older Einstein of his recollection is:

"In my own development Michelsons result has not had a considerable influence. I even do not remember if I knew of it at all when I wrote my first paper on the subject (1905). The explanation is that I was, for general reasons, firmly convinced that there does not exist absolute motion and my problem was only how this could be reconciled with our knowledge of electro-dynamics. One can therefore understand why in my personal struggle Michelsons experiment played no role or at least no decisive role."


That is probably true as far as Einstein's first-hand knowledge of it is concerned.

But there can be no doubt that the Michelson-Morley Experiment was the primary motivation for the work of H. Lorentz.

And in turn, the work of H. Lorentz was the one and the only motivation for Einstein's work on Relativity.

It follows, therefore, that Einstein's Relativity is nothing more than a failed attempt at explaining away the null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

I could not agree more. If Michelson's null result is not an example of instant light, I don't know what is. And these inventions of time dilation and length contraction- mere fabrications. But, they were the most precise and accurate fabrications that were ever invented.

"But, they were the most precise and accurate fabrications that were ever invented. "

So true that there is even no alternative to this scientific fabrication!

"And what that has to do with any "physics" at all? "

That's right.
I took a peek at that paper, and I will not waste my time to read it.
I don't care if Einstein had a beer with Michelson or a walk with Millikan.

Aonoymous:
This is true of time dilation and length contraction in the micro world- but time dilation and length contraction are macro world concepts- and there is no macro proof of its existence- and if you thought there was- I can assure you the numbers have been fudged. What we are talking about are numbers which explain the "null" result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and Michelson was only looking for a slight variation.

Remember, Michelson, one of the greatest measure men of his day, went to great lengths in expectations of a variance. When this measure did not happen, this devastated Michelson. That's why he continued to construct experiments of this sort beyond death. I don't think Michelson ever accepted the fate of his logic. In a way, the null result, and the way it has been ever since it was performed is truly a great tragedy of storied physics.

Anonymous:
Does not the Michelson/Morley experiment prove that there can be no time dilation/length contraction on the macroscopic scale? Wasn't Michelson trying to "invent" time dilation and length contraction, but he found that there was none. Unless of course, you believe there some kind of variance out there, that makes the MM experiment vindicated- this would make his method simply inferior, and yet, still correct.

When I discovered this concept, I expected the dominos to fall, but the dominos were all cock-eyed, and so, they have to be methodologically straightened so that the logic can flow. It's a painful process.

The dominoes will not fall for a while. They have been superglued to the minds of people like Anonymous. Just remember: Logically, nothing can travel faster than Instantly

Yes, this is true, nothing can travel faster than instant. But, we have to ask ourselves; eventually, if light should be included into the velocity equation.

When we talk of source and sink, could we not consider the "event" as an instantaneous dipole measure of sorts? The one does not react without the other. And they are both dependent on each other to make the event a reality. In other words, there are strict operational requirements in nature between the source and sink.

Yes, John, the near field develops at both the emission, and reception of EMR.

If one thinks of a line of billiard balls all in contact: The Q-ball strikes the one end of the line, and one ball leaves the opposite end.

You got a lot of balls to say something like that, old buddy.