(Fig.1) ↓ Static aether in absolute space changes light speed c.
It is said Michelson-Morley experiment denied luminiferous aether.
The point is this "aether" is static relative to absolute space.
In fact, their experiment did NOT deny "aether" (= light medium ) moving with the earth.
(Fig.2) The earth revolves around the Sun at speed v.
The earth is going around the sun at a speed of 30 km/s (= v ).
They supposed emitted light travels through the static medium in absolute space.
Under this condition, the observed light speed c changes depending on whether the earth ( and observer ) is moving to right or left with respect to the light.
(Fig.3) Light speed is constant c irrelevant to earth's motion.
Michelson Morley experiment showed the light speed is always constant "c", irrelevant to the earth moving direction.
This result tells us the static aether (= medium ) in absolute space does NOT exist. But it didn't reject medium moving with the earth.
(Fig.4) Einstein without light medium distorts spacetime unrealistically ?
Einstein jumped to the rash (= wrong ) conclusion that any kinds of light medium don't exist in space.
In his theory, the emitted light travels through "absolute space" without medium at c. An observer is moving with the earth at v in the opposite direction.
It is natural that this observer detects the light at a speed of c-v instead of c.
But Einstein adopted the strange idea that spacetime is distorted by observer's motion to keep "c" !
This distortion is called Lorentz transformation. Its relativity causes fatal paradoxes, which the media and universities desperately hide !
So if students ( ant dropouts ) suffering from debt sue universities and the media, they could surely win back their money ! Because all of them are deceived !
(Fig.5) Light medium (= aether ) moving with the earth.
Though textbooks and relativists tend to avoid explaining, Michelson-Morley experiment is just compatible with the light "medium" moving with the earth.
Actually, they mentioned the possibility of light medium dragged by the earth after their experiment.
(Fig.6) Light speed is always "c", irrelevant to the earth motion.
Suppose the light medium (= aether ) is moving with the earth like us all.
The emitted light travels through this medium at a speed of "c".
In this case, the light speed is always constant "c", irrelevant to the earth moving direction.
So this light medium moving with the earth is just compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is the truth without various paradoxes.
(Fig.7) ↓ All are dragged by the earth.
We know all things including human bodies, houses, even the air are moving with the earth. This is what the earth's gravity is.
This fact naturally makes us realize that some light medium is also moving with the earth like all other things.
(Fig.8) All charges are moving with earth !
If the ether is moving with the earth like the air and all other things, the speed of light is always constant "c", NOT causing "ether wind".
And all charged particles including our human bodies are moving with the earth, and it is natural to think the electric field E among them is moving with the earth, too.
If all electric fields around electrons and nuclei are moving with the earth, the light (= electromagnetic wave ) naturally travels through some medium with the earth.
Actually the velocity of the electromagnetic waves completely depends on some medium such as air and water moving with the earth.
(Fig.9) Medium is rejected → unreal virtual photon ?
It's a famous story that Einstein relativity denied "ether" (= medium ).
Then how can Einstein's "empty space" transmit Coulomb electric force ?
They say "exchange of photons" mediates electromagnetic force.
In fact, Einstein without medium needs virtual photons as forces.
Ironically, these virtual photons disobey Einstein formula.
This is the reason why they are called "virtual", not real particles.
The fact is the media and universities hide true Einstein paradoxes !
Einstein equation contradicts electron's de Broglie and two-slit experiment.
Special relativity forming basis of the modern physics destroys all students' career silently.
(Fig.10) ↓ Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?
The serious problem is this Einstein momentum contradicts de Broglie relation ! Relativistic version is this.
de Broglie wavelength was confirmed in two-slit and various experiments. So if Einstein relation disagrees with de Broglie relation, his theory is wrong.
In Fig.10 left, an electron is moving at v, causing its de Broglie wave, and double-slit interference pattern is seen on the screen.
But from the viewpoint of the moving observer, the electron appears to stop in Fig.10 right. So he sees No interference due to vanished de Broglie wave !
This is clearly one of true paradoxes.
(Fig.11) Electron moves relative to "medium" → de Broglie wave !
Lorentz magnetic force is perpendicular to particle ( or observer ) velocity. It causes serious paradox in different directin.
Electron's de Broglie wave disobeys Lorentz contraction (= independent of observer's motion ). How can we fix this serious situation ?
The only way to fix it is we admit some real "medium", which relativity rejected. Medium moving with the earth agrees with Michelson-Morley experiment.
If we admit when an electron moves with respect to this medium, it causes de Broglie wave, we can solve all serious paradoxes above !
Furthermore, this real medium can explain electron's double-slit without fantasy parallel worlds.
In fact, light speed c is affected by various different mediums ( ex. water ).
Uniform and isotropic cosmic microwave background just fits this medium.
And we don't need artificial dark matter, if we admit some medium in space from the beginning.
(Fig.12) Photon bends and slows its movement in water ?
We know that the light speed becomes slower in water ( c → 0.8c ).
In fact, Einstein relativity cannot explain why the light is slower in different "medium".
Because his theory rejected "medium"-dependent light speed.
Light refraction is caused by "different light speeds" in different media.
If Einstein rejected "medium-dependent light", his photon always bends its path at definite angle in this refraction ?
When the light (= photon ? ) exits the water, it is "accelerated" to the original "c" again ? It's very unnatural.
This refraction can be explained by classical Snell's law based on different light speeds in medium.
Wavefront is just a collection of different waves generated from new touched water points. It needs spreading "medium".
(Fig.13) Water (= one of light medium ) partially dragged light.
Is the idea of light medium dragged by the earth is real ?
Fizeau experiment proved the light is partially dragged by water !
It is known that light is slower in water decelerated to c/n ( n is refractive index ).
When this water is moving in the same direction, this slower light becomes a litte faster, again !
Of course, space among water molecules are so wide (= almost empty ) that moving water cannot drag this light completely. It's quite natural.
The light medium static relative to the earth mainly affects the light speed.
So "partial drag" by water is compatible with the idea of light medium with the earth.
Water is related only to the part of "n" ( as obstacle ), not related to the original "c" (= earth medium ).
(Fig.14) Einstein cannot explain why light in water is slower ( c → c/n ).
Though relativists often claim that this "partially dragged light" in Fizeau expeiment is compatible (← ? ) with Einstein relativity, this is untrue.
The point is Einstein relativity cannot explain why the light speed becomes slower in the water.
Slower light ( c → c/n ) in water is an essential precondition in Fizeau's partially dragged experiment.
They tacitly admit the velocity (= v ) of this water is relative to "the earth".
Under Einstein's precondition, the velocity of this water must be "v ± the earth's revolving velocity", which changes light speed in water depending on earth's moving direction.
(Fig.15) Einstein's energy demands that light always travel at c.
In fact, Einstein mc2 relation demands that the light always travel at a speed of "c", which contradicts slower light in water.
Light speed is always "c", independent of its energy (= wavelength ).
If a photon has mass, it is strange that photons with different energy E move at the same speed c. So they defined the mass of photon (= light ) as zero.
If we insert the mass = 0 into Einstein mc2 energy, its energy E always becomes zero, when the light speed "v" is smaller than "c" ( ex. in water ).
They argue this is the reason why the light always travels at speed "c".
So if light becomes slower in water than c, its light energy becomes zero !
This Einstein relation cannot explain why light is slower in water.
(Fig.16) If Einstein is right, light speed must be changed by "moving air".
The air around us is moving with the earth.
The refractive index of the air is a little bigger than 1.
It means light becomes a little slower in the air.
Einstein relativity is based on the idea that the light travels in space independent of the earth ( medium ).
But as shown in partially dragged experiment, the air moving with the earth must drag the light and change its light speed, if Einstein is right.
So Michelson-Morley experiment which showed light is always "c" on the earth is incompatible with Einstein's precondition !
Only the light medium moving with the earth ( and its air ) is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment !
(Fig.17) GPS did NOT prove Einstein relativity.
They often say without Einstein relativity, it would cause GPS navigational errors of 10 km per day, so Einstein relativity is indispensable for GPS.
But this is a big lie. Because clock times between satellite and receiver are Not the same from the beginning ! Receiver's clock is not so accurate.
So they correct the time difference between satellite and the earth using 4th satellite. It means Einstein reltivity is unnecessary and useless from the beginning.
According to general relativity, satellite clock ticks faster by only 38 microseconds per day (← too small ! ).
Other atmosphere and leap second caused by irregular earth rotation affect GPS time much more.
If relativistic time correction is so small, they tried to measure GPS time difference after much longer time ( ex. 1 year ~ ) had passed ?
In fact, there was only one old case ( in 1977 ) which measured accumulated time difference for only 6 days ( this p.11 ), which includes many uncertain factors.
So it is very difficult and unrealistic to use GPS clocks to measure relativistic time difference ( this p.17 )
(Fig.18) Oscillating Al+ ion's clock ticks more slowly ? ← doubtful !
They say "time dilation" was confirmed in experiment. But in the only paper ( p.3 ), the relativistic time dilation they say about is too small to believe.
Light frequency change due to time dilation ( ? ) is only 4.1 × 10-17, too small ! And strange to say, they measured it for only short period of 40000 s, though its effect is so small that we need much longer time.
Accoding to this, the time in oscillating Al+ ion at a speed of 30m/s becomes slightly slower. This ion absorbs 1.12 × 1015 Hz light (= 4.6 eV ) in transition between S and P.
They claim moving ion absorbs the 1119999999999999 (= 1.12 × 1015 - 1 ) oscillating light per second due to time dilation. This change is too small to believe !
First, they ignore twin paradox. From the viewpoint of moving ion, stationary ion is moving, which clock ticks slower contrary to this experiment ! ← Fatal flaw like GPS.
Second, the true velocity of moving electron is much higher than that of the whole ion (= 30 m/s = too slow ! ) So they ignore Doppler effect with respect to "fast" electron (← NOT ion ! ).
As you see, the present physics tries to force us to blindly believe Einstein relativity, based only on these doubtful experiments. Compare this and this.
2016/1/29 updated. Feel free to link to this site.