Michelson-Morley experiment. Michelson-Morley experiment
In the second half of the 19th century, physical views on the nature of the propagation of light, the effect of gravity and some other phenomena increasingly began to encounter difficulties. They were associated with the etheric concept that dominated science. The idea of conducting an experiment that would resolve the accumulated contradictions, as they say, was in the air.
In the 1880s, a series of experiments were carried out, very complex and subtle for those times - Michelson's experiments to study the dependence of the speed of light on the direction of movement of the observer. Before dwelling in more detail on the description and results of these famous experiments, it is necessary to remember what the concept of the ether was and how the physics of light was understood.
19th century views on the nature of light
At the beginning of the century, the wave theory of light triumphed, which received brilliant experimental confirmation in the works of Young and Fresnel, and later - theoretical justification in the work of Maxwell. The light was absolutely undeniable wave properties, and the corpuscular theory was buried under a pile of facts that it could not explain (it would be revived only at the beginning of the 20th century on a completely new basis).
However, the physics of that era could not imagine the propagation of a wave other than through mechanical vibrations any environment. If light is a wave, and it is capable of propagating in a vacuum, then scientists had no choice but to assume that the vacuum is filled with some substance that, thanks to its vibrations, conducts light waves.
Luminous Ether
A mysterious substance, weightless, invisible, not registered by any instruments, was called ether. Michelson's experiment was precisely intended to confirm the fact of its interaction with other physical objects.
Hypotheses about the existence of ethereal matter were expressed by Descartes and Huygens in the 17th century, but it became necessary like air precisely in the 19th century, and then it led to insoluble paradoxes. The fact is that in order to exist at all, the ether had to have mutually exclusive or, in general, physically unreal qualities.
Contradictions of the etheric concept
To correspond to the picture of the observable world, the luminiferous ether must be absolutely motionless - otherwise this picture would be constantly distorted. But its immobility was in irreconcilable conflict with Maxwell’s equations and Galileo’s principle of relativity. For the sake of their preservation, it was necessary to admit that the ether is carried away by moving bodies.
In addition, ethereal matter was thought of as absolutely solid, continuous and at the same time in no way interfering with the movement of bodies through it, incompressible and, moreover, possessing transverse elasticity, otherwise it would not conduct electromagnetic waves. In addition, the ether was thought of as an all-pervading substance, which, again, does not fit well with the idea of its fascination.
The idea and first performance of Michelson's experiment
American physicist Albert Michelson became interested in the problem of the ether after he read a letter from Maxwell in the journal Nature, published after the latter’s death in 1879, describing unsuccessful attempt detect the movement of the Earth in relation to the ether.
In 1881, Michelson's first experiment was carried out to determine the speed of light propagating in various directions relative to the ether by an observer moving with the Earth.
The Earth, moving in orbit, must be exposed to the action of the so-called ethereal wind - a phenomenon similar to the flow of air flowing onto a moving body. A monochromatic light beam directed parallel to this “wind” will move towards it, somewhat losing speed, and back (reflected from the mirror) - vice versa. The change in speed in both cases is the same, but it is achieved in different time: A slower “oncoming” beam will travel longer. Thus, a light signal emitted parallel to the “etheric wind” will necessarily be delayed relative to a signal traveling the same distance, also with reflection from the mirror, but in a perpendicular direction.
To record this delay, a device invented by Michelson himself was used - an interferometer, the operation of which is based on the phenomenon of superposition of coherent light waves. If one of the waves was delayed, the interference pattern would shift due to the resulting phase difference.
Michelson's first experiment with mirrors and an interferometer did not give an unambiguous result due to the insufficient sensitivity of the device and underestimation of numerous interferences (vibrations) and caused criticism. A significant increase in accuracy was required.
Repeated experience
In 1887, the scientist repeated the experiment together with his compatriot Edward Morley. They used an improved installation and took special care to eliminate the influence of side factors.
The essence of the experience has not changed. A light beam collected using a lens fell on a translucent mirror mounted at an angle of 45°. Here it was divided: one beam penetrated through the divider, the second went out in a perpendicular direction. Each of the rays was then reflected normally flat mirror, returned to the beam splitter, after which it partially fell on the interferometer. The experimenters were confident in the existence of an “ethereal wind” and expected to obtain a completely measurable shift of more than a third of the interference fringe.
Movement could not be neglected solar system in space, therefore the idea of the experiment included the ability to rotate the installation in order to fine-tune the direction of the “ethereal wind”.
To avoid vibration interference and distortion of the picture when turning the device, the entire structure was placed on a massive stone slab with a wooden toroidal float floating in pure mercury. The foundation under the installation was buried down to the rock.
Experimental results
Scientists carried out careful observations over the course of a year, rotating the plate with the device clockwise and counterclockwise. was recorded in 16 directions. And, despite the accuracy unprecedented for its era, Michelson's experiment, carried out in collaboration with Morley, gave a negative result.
In-phase light waves leaving the beam splitter reached the finish line without a phase shift. This was repeated every time, at any position of the interferometer, and meant that the speed of light in Michelson’s experiment did not change under any circumstances.
The experimental results were verified several times, including in the 20th century, using laser interferometers and microwave resonators, achieving an accuracy of one ten-billionth the speed of light. The result of the experiment remains unshakable: this value is unchanged.
Significance of the experiment
From the experiments of Michelson and Morley it follows that the “ethereal wind”, and, consequently, this elusive matter itself simply does not exist. If any physical object is not fundamentally detected in any processes, this is equivalent to its absence. Physicists, including the authors of the brilliantly performed experiment, did not immediately realize the collapse of the concept of the ether, and with it the absolute frame of reference.
Only Albert Einstein was able to present a consistent and at the same time revolutionary new explanation of the experimental results in 1905. Having considered these results as they are, without trying to attract the speculative ether to them, Einstein received two conclusions:
- No optical experiment can detect the rectilinear and uniform motion of the Earth (the short duration of the act of observation gives the right to consider it as such).
- Relative to any inertial frame of reference, the speed of light in vacuum is constant.
These conclusions (the first - in combination with Galileo's principle of relativity) served as the basis for Einstein to formulate his famous postulates. So the Michelson-Morley experiment served as a solid empirical basis for the special theory of relativity.
Mr Olympia August 17, 2015 at 01:46 pmMichelson-Morley experiment
- Physics
I became interested in the Michelson-Morley experiment back when I was studying at the university - that was a long time ago. Here I have a selection from the Internet - several “cuts” in an abbreviated form:
The special theory of relativity was developed by Albert Einstein and his predecessors based mainly on the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881, 1887), which did not reveal ether drift - an experiment to determine the speed of the Earth's movement relative to the luminiferous medium (ether).
The essence of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the interferometer used a split light beam, which traveled a forward and backward path in the longitudinal and transverse directions relative to the movement of the Earth's surface. The resulting beam of light returning to the translucent mirror made it possible to observe the interference pattern of the displacement of the interference fringes and to identify the slightest desynchronization of the two beams - the delay of one beam relative to the other.
This experiment was carried out in late XIX in and later, different experimenters showed either “zero” (or “negative”) or positive results with a certain stellar apex. Various specialists, up to Nobel laureates, criticize both the very setting up of experiments similar to the Michelson-Morley experiments, and the theoretical calculations derived from them.
This is not surprising, because based on the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the special theory of relativity was created. The significance of the experiment is truly difficult to overestimate, because it was supposed to confirm the presence of a luminiferous medium - ether, the hypothesis of which, after this experiment, relativists rejected and accepted the theory of relativity. And although the absence, according to the experiments of Michelson-Morley, of the “ethereal wind” did not yet prove the absence of ether, the relativists, from their positivist idealistic understanding of the “simplicity” of the scientific concept, decided to get rid of it. At that time, positivists declared substantial concepts like “matter” to be relics of metaphysics.
The sophisticated reader understands that the deification of an idea requires completely different mental qualities than a strict scientific approach. The mechanisms of the genesis and expansion of relativism are no different from similar processes of origin and spread, say, religious beliefs and myths.
I admit, when I was interested in this experiment, I did not find any evidence of the theory of relativity in it - the brains are probably not structured like those of geniuses. The talk there was about attempts to measure the speed of light in directions along and across the movement of the Earth's surface. This speed, according to the interpretation of the measurement results in the experiments of Michelson-Morley and their followers, turned out to be the same, i.e. constant. So what? The speed of sound in still air is also constant in all directions - in the land of the blind, they could also construct some kind of stunning theory from this fact. And in general, why on earth should the speed of light not be constant within the Earth? Does the inertial mass, which particles of light also possess, depend on movement along or across the movement of the Earth, or is there at least a hypothesis on this matter?
Semikov S.A. Report on the discipline "History and methodology of science" dated December 20, 2008
The earthly world was shrouded in pitch darkness.
Let there be light - and then Newton appeared.
But Satan did not wait long for revenge:
Einstein has arrived. And everything became the same as before.
What led to such a radical revision of classical mechanics? It all started in 1881 with Michelson's experiment. In the experiment, an attempt was made to establish the speed of the Earth's movement in the ether - the medium in which, according to electrodynamics, light propagated. To do this, we compared the times of movement of a light beam in a Michelson-Morley interferometer along and across the speed of the Earth. It is clear that the speed of light in the ether along and across would be different and the times of movement would be different. But experience revealed the equality of times, which indicated the falsity of the theory of the ether and Maxwellian electrodynamics based on it. However, scientists already believed so much in electrodynamics that they preferred to modify mechanics in order to adjust the result of the experiment to electrodynamics.
The quatrain given above, if I’m not mistaken, is two epigrams translated by Samuel Marshak. Having no objections to the views of the author of the report, I will allow myself to find fault with the factor of language use - the section, after all, relates to terminology: I mean the section of the site. So, correct use language presupposes, from my point of view, the correct interpretation of messages constructed through words. And from this point of view, no such speed of light or “equality of times” was measured in the Michelson-Morley experiment. Only the results of wave interference were recorded, which was used to judge the speed of light. At the same time, a lot of arbitrary, although more or less plausible, assumptions were made. Assumptions that the speed of light in the forward and reverse directions of its movement is the same; that the frequency of light in these directions is also the same; that the time of reflection of light can be neglected; that the process of interaction of the device with the light beam does not introduce distortion into interference, and so on.
In my notes on the Michelson-Morley experiment it was written as follows: The experiment did not reveal “equality of times,” but only the result of measurements, which, in particular, can be interpreted as equality of times.
Tags: Michelson-Morley experiment, classical mechanics
To spread in space, light does not need a “luminiferous ether”.
It is difficult to imagine absolute emptiness - a complete vacuum containing nothing. Human consciousness strives to fill it with at least something material, and over the course of many centuries human history It was believed that cosmic space was filled with ether. The idea was that interstellar space is filled with some kind of invisible and intangible subtle substance. When Maxwell's system of equations was derived, which predicts that light propagates through space at a finite speed, even the author of this theory himself believed that electromagnetic waves propagate in a medium, just as acoustic waves propagate in air and sea waves propagate in water. In the first half XIX century scientists even carefully worked out the theoretical model of the ether and the mechanics of light propagation, including all sorts of levers and axes that supposedly facilitate the propagation of vibrational light waves in the ether.
In 1887, two American physicists - Albert Michelson and Henry Morley - decided to jointly conduct an experiment designed to prove once and for all to skeptics that luminiferous ether really exists, fills the Universe and serves as a medium in which light and other electromagnetic waves propagate. Michelson had unquestioned authority as a designer optical instruments, and Morley was famous as a tireless and infallible experimental physicist. The experiment they invented is easier to describe than to carry out practically.
Michelson and Morley used interferometer— optical measuring device, in which a ray of light is split in two by a translucent mirror (a glass plate is silvered on one side just enough to partially transmit the light rays entering it and partially reflect them; a similar technology is used today in SLR cameras). As a result, the beam splits and the two resulting coherent the rays diverge at right angles to each other, after which they are reflected from two reflector mirrors equidistant from the translucent mirror and return to the translucent mirror, the resulting beam of light from which makes it possible to observe the interference pattern and identify the slightest desynchronization two beams (the delay of one beam relative to the other; see Interference).
The Michelson-Morley experiment was fundamentally aimed at confirming (or disproving) the existence of the world ether by identifying the “etheric wind” (or the fact of its absence). Indeed, moving in orbit around the Sun, the Earth moves relative to the hypothetical ether for six months in one direction, and for the next six months in another. Consequently, for six months the “ethereal wind” should blow across the Earth and, as a result, shift the interferometer readings in one direction, and for six months in the other. So, after observing their setup for a year, Michelson and Morley did not detect any shifts in the interference pattern: complete ethereal calm! (Modern experiments of this kind, carried out with the greatest possible accuracy, including experiments with laser interferometers, gave similar results.) So: the ethereal wind, and therefore the ether, does not exist.
In the absence of the ethereal wind and the ether as such, an insoluble conflict between classical mechanics Newton (implying a certain absolute reference system) and Maxwell's equations (according to which the speed of light has a limiting value that does not depend on the choice of reference system), which ultimately led to the emergence of the theory of relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment finally showed that an “absolute frame of reference” does not exist in nature. And, no matter how much Einstein later claimed that he did not pay attention to the results at all experimental research When developing the theory of relativity, there is hardly any doubt that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments contributed to the rapid perception of such a radical theory by the scientific community seriously.
Edward Williams MORLEY
Edward Williams Morley, 1838–1923
American physicist and chemist. Born in Newark, New Jersey into the family of a Congregationalist clergyman. Due to poor health, he did not attend school, but studied at home, and his father prepared him to continue serving the church, but the boy chose natural Sciences and began studying chemistry and natural history. In the end, he turned out to be an unrivaled experimenter. It was Morley who managed to determine with unsurpassed accuracy the specific gravity of hydrogen and oxygen in the composition clean water. When fate brought him together with Albert Michelson, his skills as an experimenter proved simply irreplaceable, and now the names of these two scientists are inextricably linked due to their famous experience.
Albert Abraham Michelson, 1852–1931
American physicist, German by nationality (pictured). Born in the town of Strelno (now Strzelno) on the territory of modern Poland (in those years part of Russian Empire). At the age of two, he immigrated to the United States with his parents. He grew up in California during the era of the famous “gold rush,” but the father of the future scientist was not engaged in the search for gold, but in small-scale wholesale trade in cities affected by this disease. He entered the US Naval Academy on the special recommendation of a certain congressman from his state, was accepted into active service, completed a full course of drill training, after which he was appointed a physics teacher. Thanks to this, he had the opportunity to study optics and, in particular, the construction of an instrument for determining the speed of light.
After retiring from active service in 1881 he became a teacher at the School applied sciences them. Case School of Applied Sciences in Cleveland, Ohio, where he continued his research. In 1907, Michelson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of precision optical instruments and for the research carried out with their help", namely, for precise definition the length of a standard meter and the speed of light in a vacuum.
Analysis of the Michelson–Morley experiment
Russian scientist V.A. Atsyukovsky scrupulously analyzed the experimental foundations of Einstein’s theories of relativity and came to the following conclusion: “An analysis of the results of experiments carried out by various researchers in order to verify the provisions of SRT and GTR showed that experiments in which positive and unambiguously interpreted results were obtained confirming the provisions and conclusions of the theories of relativity A. Einstein does not exist."
This conclusion also applies to the most famous experiment - the Michelson-Morley experiment. Please note that the Michelson-Morley interferometer was stationary relative to the Earth, only the light was moving. The authors believed that they would be able to detect the influence of the Earth's velocity V = 30 km/s relative to the Sun on the deflection of the interference fringe of light. The calculation was made according to the formula
The expected 0.04 fringe shift was not observed. And for some reason the authors did not look for the reason for the discrepancies between theory and experiment. Let's do it for them.
Since photons have mass, the Earth for them is an inertial frame of reference and their behavior in the field of its gravity should not differ from the behavior in this field of other bodies with mass, therefore we must substitute into the above formula not the speed of the Earth’s movement relative to the Sun ( V = 30 km/s), and the speed of the Earth’s surface (V = 0.5 km/s), formed by its rotation about its axis. Then the expected shift of the interference fringe in the Michelson-Morley experiment will not be 0.04, but significantly less
. (423)
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Michelson-Morley device showed no shift in the interference fringe. And we now know the reason for this: it lacked the necessary sensitivity (accuracy).
Nevertheless, the Nobel Committee awarded A. Michelson the Nobel Prize in 1907 “for the creation of precision optical instruments and the performance of spectroscopic and metrological studies with their help.” Let us add that the erroneous interpretation of Michelson's experiment was the experimental basis for A. Einstein's erroneous theories of relativity.
But what if we set up an experiment in which a light source and a device that records the displacement of the interference fringe move (rotate) in the Earth’s gravitational field? In this case, the instrument readings are compared when the entire installation is not rotating and when it is rotating. It is immediately clear that in the absence of rotation of the installation, the measurement principle will not differ from the measurement principle in the Michelson-Morley experiment and the device will not show any shift of the interference fringe. But as soon as the installation begins to rotate in the Earth’s gravity field, a displacement of the indicated strip should immediately appear. This is explained by the fact that while the light goes from the source to the receiver, the position of the latter changes in the Earth’s gravity field relative to the source, and the device must record the displacement of the indicated strip.
Let us emphasize once again: the position of the source and receiver of signals in the Michelson-Morley experiment does not change relative to each other in the Earth’s gravity field, but in the example we described it does. This is the main difference between these experiments. The described elementary logic is convincingly confirmed by Sagnac's experience. The results of his experiment contradict the readings of the Michelson-Morley interferometer, and relativists suppress this fact and stubbornly ignore it, clearly demonstrating that scientific truth they are not interested.
We have provided quite strong evidence of the fallacy of Einstein’s theories of relativity, so the question involuntarily arises: how can we now perceive the fact that A. Einstein’s theories of relativity lie, as relativists believe, in the foundation of all the achievements of physics in the 20th century? Very simple! All these achievements are the result of the efforts of mainly experimental physicists who carried out experiments not for the purpose of testing physical theories, but with the aim of obtaining a result that could be used for military purposes or in competition when conquering markets for their products.
Theorists, of course, tried to find an explanation for these achievements, to somehow substantiate them, but these explanations turned out to be approximate and superficial. The main obstacle in explaining the deep foundations of matter and the universe was the stereotype of thinking formed by Einstein’s erroneous theories, and the persistence of his supporters in protecting these theories from criticism.
12.5. How the planets of the solar system were born
Let us analyze only the hypothesis about the formation of the planets of the Solar System, according to which they were formed from a star flying near the Sun, which captured it with its gravitational field (Fig. 228, a).
Rice. 228. a) - diagram of the movement of planets around the Sun; scheme
involvement of star A by the gravitational force of the Sun (C)
into orbital motion
This hypothesis allows us to find answers to most of the main questions related to the birth of planets.
Let us begin our analysis of the birth process of the planets of the solar system by formulating the main questions, the answers to which should follow from this analysis.
1. Why are the orbits of all planets almost circular?
2. Why do the orbits of all planets lie almost in the same plane?
3. Why do all the planets revolve around the Sun in the same direction?
4. Why do the directions of rotation of the planets (with the exception of Uranus) around their axes coincide with the directions of their rotation around the Sun?
5. Why are the orbital planes of most planetary satellites close to their equatorial planes?
6. Why are the orbits of most satellites almost circular?
7. Why do most of the satellites and the ring of Saturn revolve around their planets in the same direction as the planets around the Sun?
8. Why is there a planetary density gradient?
9. Is it possible to assume that the pattern of changing density of planets, as they move away from the Sun, is similar to the change in the density of the existing Sun, starting from its core to its surface?
10. Why do as planets move away from the Sun, their densities first decrease and then increase slightly?
We have already shown that the formation of the main elementary particles: photons, electrons, protons and neutrons are governed by the law of conservation of angular momentum (angular momentum), mathematical model which is Planck's constant (219). We called this law the main law governing the formation of the material world. It follows from this that the same law should have governed the process of birth of the planets of the solar system. Now we will see that there is a high probability of connection between this hypothesis and reality.
Since planets have no rectilinear movements, but rotate relative to the Sun and relative to their axes, then to describe these rotations we will use a mathematical model of the law of conservation of angular momentum.
Now let's formulate a hypothesis. The planets of the Solar System were formed from a star flying past the Sun and captured by its gravitational field (Fig. 228, b, positions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...). When the star was far from the Sun, then, moving in space, it rotated only about its axis, which was parallel (mostly) to the axis of rotation of the Sun. It is quite natural that the star had its own angular momentum, the magnitude of which is unknown to us. However, we know that the absence external forces left this moment constant. As it approached the Sun, the gravitational force of the Sun began to act on the star.
Let's assume that this star flew past the Sun at a distance equal to the distance from the Sun to the very first planet Mercury. It is quite natural that the gravitational force of the Sun (Fig. 228, b, positions: 2, 3, 4...) drew this star into a circular motion around the Sun. The next assumption is that the direction of rotation of the star around its axis coincided with the direction of rotation of the star around the Sun. As a result, the kinetic moment of rotation around the Sun was added to the kinetic moment of rotation of the star about its axis.
Since the star was in a plasma state, like the Sun, only smaller than the sun in terms of mass and size, then it could stay in orbit only if there was equality between the centrifugal force of inertia and the gravitational force of the Sun (Fig. 228, b, position 5). If this equality did not exist, then in the formed first orbit only that part of the tightly bound plasma of the star could be retained (Fig. 228, position 6), which ensured equality between the centrifugal force of inertia and the gravitational force of the Sun. The remaining part of the star's plasma began to move away from the Sun under the influence of a greater centrifugal force of inertia (Fig. 228, position 7). In the process of moving away from the Sun, the next portion of a stable structure began to form from the receding part of the star, which the gravitational force of the Sun again separated from the plasma of the star and formed the second planet - Venus. The sequence of events described formed the planets around the Sun.
Now we need to prove the reliability of the described hypothetical scenario for the birth of the Solar system. To do this, we will collect information about current state planets of the solar system. In this information, it is necessary to include the masses of all planets and their large satellites, the densities of all planets, their radii, as well as orbital radii, orbital velocities, and angular velocities of rotation of the planets relative to their axes. This information will allow us to find the orbital angular momentum of the star at the moment it begins to rotate around the Sun. A star moving away from the Sun due to the fact that the centrifugal force of inertia is greater than the gravitational force of the Sun will leave in the orbits of existing planets as much plasma mass as they now have in the solid state along with their satellites.
It is quite natural that the total angular momentum of all modern planets will be equal to the angular momentum of the star at the moment of the beginning of its orbital motion around the Sun (Fig. 228, b, position 5).
So, here is some basic information about the Sun and its planets. The sun has mass 
. Its radius is , and its density 
. The angular velocity of rotation of the Sun relative to its axis is equal to 
. It is known that the sum of the masses of all planets and their satellites is almost 1000 times less than the mass of the Sun. Below, in the table. 61 shows the masses of the planets of the Solar System and their densities.
Table 61. Masses of planets and their satellites, and densities of planets
| Planets | Weights, , kg | Densities, |
| 1. Mercury | ||
| 2.Venus | ||
| 3. Earth |  | |
| 4. Mars | ||
| 5. Jupiter |  | |
| 6. Saturn |  | |
| 7. Uranus | ||
| 8. Neptune |  | |
| 9. Pluto | ||
| Total |
We took basic information about the parameters of the planets on the Internet: Astronomy + Astronomy for amateurs + Solar system + names of planets + planet in numbers. It turned out that the compilers of this reference information made a number of mistakes. For example, according to their data, the orbital radii of Jupiter and Saturn are the same, but Neptune’s orbital radius, expressed in astronomical units, differs from its value expressed in kilometers. It seems to us that the published hypothesis will be of interest to professional astronomers and they, having more accurate information, will clarify the results of our calculations.
Let us pay attention to the sequence of changes in the density of the planets. Those of them that are closer to the Sun have higher density. As planets move away from the Sun, their density first decreases and then increases again. Saturn has the lowest density, and Earth has the highest. What is surprising is that the Sun, being in a plasma state, has a density ( ) greater than that of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, which are in a solid state.
It is believed that Saturn consists mainly of solid hydrogen and helium. In addition to hydrogen and helium, Neptune and Pluto contain other chemical elements.
If we assume that all the planets formed from a star, then it should have a density gradient approximately the same as that formed by successively formed planets. The star's core consisted of heavier chemical elements, which were born in the process of its life and evolution and were lowered by its gravitational forces to the center. The fact that Saturn, having the lowest density, consists mainly of hydrogen, provokes the assumption that hydrogen, as the main source of thermonuclear reactions, occupied middle area the stars in which they take place thermonuclear explosions. Most of the heavy chemical elements that are born in this case are rushed by the gravitational force of the star to its core, and a smaller part is ejected by explosions towards the surface of the star.
What has been described also provokes us to assume that the modern Sun also has a density gradient with the sequence that the density gradient of the sequence of planets has (Table 40). It follows from this that thermonuclear reactions occur approximately in the middle spherical region of the Sun, and the prominences on its surface are the consequences of these explosions.
If the described hypothesis of a change in the density of a star in a plasma state is close to reality, then the difference between the centrifugal force and the gravitational force of the Sun, acting on a passing star, should have delayed, first of all, that part of its plasma that has highest density, which means the strongest bond between the molecules of chemical elements. The lighter part of the plasma, with less connection between the molecules of chemical elements, must be removed from the Sun by a centrifugal force of inertia greater than the gravitational force of the Sun. The likelihood of such a scenario is confirmed by the ebb and flow of the Earth’s oceans, formed by the gravitational force of the Moon, which is equivalent in effect to the force of inertia.
Of course, water is not plasma, but its fluidity is sufficient to respond to changes in the magnitude of the gravitational force of the Moon when the distance between the surface of the ocean and the Moon changes by only 3.3%.
The radii of the planets and the radii of their orbits, as well as the angular velocities of rotation of the planets relative to their axes and relative to the Sun and the orbital velocities of the planets. They are presented in tables 62, 63.
Table 62. Radii of planets and radii of their orbits
| Planets | Radii of planets, , m | Orbit radii, , m |
| 1. Mercury | ||
| 2. Venus | ||
| 3. Earth | ||
| 4. Mars | ||
| 5. Jupiter | ||
| 6. Saturn | ||
| 7. Uranus | ||
| 8. Neptune | ||
| 9. Pluto |
Orbital centrifugal forces of inertia and gravitational forces of the Sun acting on modern planets are presented in table. 64. Their equality is proof of the stability of the orbits (Table 64).
Table 64. Velocities of the planets
| Planets | Natural angular velocities, , rad/s | Orbital angular velocities, , rad/s | Orbital speeds, , m/s |
| 1.Mercury | |||
| 2. Venus | |||
| 3. Earth | |||
| 4. Mars | |||
| 5. Jupiter | |||
| 6. Saturn | |||
| 7. Uranus | |||
| 8. Neptune | |||
| 9. Pluto |
It is quite natural that in the first orbit that the star that came from space to the Sun began to form, only that part of its plasma remained, which ensured equality between the gravitational force of the Sun and the centrifugal force of inertia (Table 65). It is also obvious that such a division of the star’s plasma began at the very beginning of its rotation relative to the Sun, therefore the orbital speed of the plasma remaining in the first orbit could decrease.
Table 65. Centrifugal forces of inertia and gravitational forces
modern planets
| Planets |  |  |
| 1. Mercury | ||
| 2. Venus | ||
| 3. Earth | ||
| 4. Mars | ||
| 5. Jupiter | ||
| 6. Saturn | ||
| 7. Uranus | ||
| 8. Neptune | ||
| 9. Pluto |
It is also natural that the gravitational forces of that part of the plasma that remained in the first orbit formed a spherical formation from it, similar to the shape of the modern planet Mercury (Fig. 228, b, position 6).
Thus, a spherical formation with a sufficiently high density remained in the first orbit, and the remaining part of the star’s plasma moved away from the Sun by the centrifugal force of inertia. As a result, from the receding plasma, gravitational forces formed a second portion of plasma with a mass that ensured equality between the gravitational force of the Sun and the force of inertia. From this portion the second planet - Venus - was formed, and the remaining plasma former star continued to move away from the Sun. Our planet was then formed from it, and another object, which we now call the Moon, separated from the receding part of the remnant of the star. Thus, portions with greater density gradually emerged from the plasma of the former star.
The moment came when part of the sphere separated from maximum number hydrogen, which ensured the thermonuclear reactions of the star, and first Jupiter and then Saturn were formed.
The remaining plasma had less hydrogen and more of the heavier chemical elements that were ejected nuclear explosions onto the surface of a star during its normal activity. As a result, the density of the outermost planets increased.
Of course, the process of separating each portion of a star's plasma is very complicated. There are bonding forces between the molecules of chemical elements and their clusters, internal forces gravity of the star, centrifugal forces of inertia of rotation of the star relative to its axis, orbital centrifugal forces of inertia and gravitational forces of the Sun. However, the plasma state of the star’s matter leads to the fact that the gravitational force of the Sun retains in orbit, first of all, that part of it that has the greatest density, since the forces uniting this part are greater than the forces that act in the less dense layers of the star. At the receding part of the star, gravitational forces will again form a core from those chemical elements that were closer to its center.
From the described diagram of the formation of planets, we immediately get an answer to the question about the reasons for their movement in the same plane and the coincidence of their rotations (excluding Uranus) relative to their axes and relative to the Sun with the direction of rotation of the Sun relative to its axis.
It is quite natural that the formation of planetary satellites is a consequence of the plasma state of parts of the star moving away from the Sun. Some of these parts were separated from that part of the plasma of the star, which, having released a portion from itself to form a planet, moving away from the Sun, lost some more of its plasma. The fact that the density of the Moon is less than the density of the Earth confirms this assumption.
As for the reverse rotation of Uranus relative to its axis, there may be several reasons for this and they need to be analyzed.
So, the described process of planet formation is possible if a portion of star plasma arrives at each orbit, the centrifugal force of which will be greater than the gravitational force of the Sun. How can I check this?
We have already noted the role of the law of conservation of angular momentum. First of all, the total mass of all planets and their satellites must be equal to the mass of the star from which they were formed. Further, the total value of the angular momentum of all existing planets and their satellites must be equal to the angular momentum of the star at the moment of its rotation relative to the Sun (Fig. 228, b, position 5). Both of these quantities are easy to calculate. The results of these calculations are presented in tables 65-66. All that remains for us is to provide explanations on the methodology of these calculations.
Table 65. Kinetic moments of modern planets
| Planets | They will throw their own. | moments,  |
| 1. Mercury | ||
| 2. Venus | ||
| 3. Earth | ||
| 4. Mars | ||
| 5. Jupiter | ||
| 6. Saturn | ||
| 7. Uranus | ||
| 8. Neptune | ||
| 9. Pluto |
Orbital throws. moments,
The information presented in table. 40, obtained from reference data on the planets of the Solar System. The values of the angular velocities of rotation of the planets around their own axes and around the Sun (Table 63), necessary for calculating the kinetic moments of rotation of the planets about their axes and relative to the Sun, were taken from the Internet.
| Planets | Table 66. Kinetic moments of modern planets  | Orbital throws. |
| 1. Mercury | ||
| 2. Venus | ||
| 3. Earth | ||
| 4. Mars | ||
| 5. Jupiter | ||
| 6. Saturn | ||
| 7. Uranus | ||
| 8. Neptune | ||
| 9. Pluto | ||
| Total |
moments, 
General will throw. moments, Let us pay attention to the fact that the planets have shapes close to spherical, therefore their moments of inertia relative to their axes of rotation are determined by the formula. Next
Schematic representation of the Earth's motion in a hypothetical ether flow. With the emergence of electrodynamics at the end of the 19th century, it was believed that electromagnetic waves, and, consequently, light, propagate in a special weightless elastic medium, which was called the ether. Since the Earth moves around the Sun at a speed of over 30 km/s, two possibilities arose: either it moves relative to the ether, or it partially captures the ether, dragging it along with it. Initially, the experiment set itself the task of testing these hypotheses.
http://site/uploads/posts/2011-02/1297963534_2%28en%29.svg.png Scheme of beam movement in the Michelson interferometer Modern interference pattern in a similar experiment using a red laser. The researchers were faced with the task of inventing an instrument that would be sufficiently sensitive to the movement of the ether relative to the Earth. This instrument is now called a Michelson interferometer. In an interferometer, the initial beam of light is split into two using a translucent mirror, and then these two beams, having traveled different paths, are brought together and interfere. By studying the interference pattern, we can infer the difference in optical paths between the two beams.
If the Earth moves relative to the ether, then a ray perpendicular to the movement of the Earth and a ray parallel to the movement of the Earth would have to respond differently to the movement of the ether, and, therefore, travel a different optical path. Thus, when rotating the interferometer, the interference pattern should change.
In 1881, Michelson in Germany conducted such an experiment and obtained a smaller than expected change in the interference pattern, but then his instrument still had too much error to make any statement.
Michelson designed an accurate interferometer in the USA, at Western Reserve University, together with Morley. The length of the interferometer arm was 11 m. The device was placed in closed room in the basement of a stone building, into the ground, reducing possible temperature effects and vibrations. To reduce vibrations even further, the interferometer was mounted on a huge block of marble, which was placed in a pool filled with mercury. According to calculations, they should have seen the effect of the Earth's motion relative to the ether.
When the marble block was fully rotated with the interferometer, the interference pattern would change periodically with two peaks and two valleys per barnyard. Moreover, since the Earth rotates on its axis, the phase of these periodic changes must have varied depending on day or night.
The experiment did not reveal the expected change in the interference pattern. The displacement that was expected under the assumption that the ether is not carried away by the Earth at all should be, according to calculations, 0.4. The experiment showed that it does not exceed 0.01. Since this displacement is proportional to the square of the speed, Michelson and Morley, in their article in the American Journal of Science, concluded that the speed of the Earth relative to the ether may be 1/6, and certainly less than 1/4 of the speed of the Earth is visible from the Sun. Since the measured value of the shift of the picture was within the experimental error, it may be that the speed of the Earth relative to the ether is generally zero.
This conclusion was consistent with Stokes's hypothesis that the ether was carried away by the Earth. However, Hendrik Lorentz showed in 1886 that Stokes' hypothesis is controversial. Thus, the result of the experiment did not find a satisfactory explanation. The solution to the problem came only after Albert Einstein created the theory of relativity.
Search
We can notify you about new articles,