Speculations in Science and Technology 21, Dec. 1998

Letter to the Editor of SST

Frank Pio Russo

P.O. Box 90 Campbelltown 5074 South Australia

To the editor of SST: I am afraid that very few persons will be able to understand my recent Michelson-Morley paper (June98) [1], without some elucidatory comments:

1) The first point, one must grasp, is that there is a stationary length and a moving length and that although there was reference to the stationary length (i.e. contracted) of 10.66420099m... the orbital arm that is set when the experiment is set-up, is of the 10.83079918m length; i.e. the orbital shorter arm is only pivotal for working things out, because after all it is set whilst the earth is in motion and even if the earth would stop orbiting after it is set: the setting would remain as set. i.e. the apparatus does not shrink and expand.

2) A second key point which must be grasped so as to "command" the experiment, is that one should also do the analysis with the "summation of series" without contracting the orbital length i.e. starting off with a stationary orbital arm which is the same as the perpendicular, that is 10.83079918m... this is crucial so that one can work out the proper ‘relative’ speeds of light as well as the relative orbital speeds because to do this you need to compare equal lengths (that is apples with apples and not apples with oranges). Hence if one uses a perpendicular L of 10.83079918m and an orbital stationary L which is also 10.83079918m; then S1 , (the length for the light beam to reach the mirror whilst the mirror is moving away from it), would become 13.12379204m and S2, (the length of the light beam to return to the moving sample splitter which is coming to meet it), would become 9.219896174m; and using the ratios of these lengths to the 11m (which are travelled at the same speed perpendicularly along the hypotenuses), one would get the respective SDRs ("Slowing" Down Ratios) as 1.193072004 and 0.838172379 giving the respective relative velocities as 255203267m/sec and 363261640.2m/sec. That is cA which is 304475873.2m divided by 1.193072004 for the longer absolute length segment and divided by 0.838172379 for the shorter absolute length.

3) One must now convert the absolute lengths, which are obtained in my paper by expanding the contracted length. Using the expanded shorter arm, one gets the following:

4) Using ratios, one can convert the orbital velocity [2] of the earth of 53198115.45m/sec to relative velocities for the t1a and t1b : (in other words, if the velocity of light is modified to appear to be going at these altered speeds... how fast would the earth appear to be relatively going?

5) The miraculous happening which takes place when one marries the relative velocities of light with the apparent relative velocities of the earth ... (i.e. addition in the forward subinterval because both speeds are in the same direction; and subtraction in the return subinterval because the relative motion of the earth is in the opposite direction to that of the beam of light)... one gets the perpendicular relative speed of 299792458m/sec in both cases!

6) Out of my Michelson-Morley experiment, comes a contraction factor of about 1.47 from full expansion: this is truly amazing because it explains the dimorphism of the age of the universe. Ten billion years can be the contracted age with 15 billion as the expanded version and perhaps the true value might be somewhere near the average of the two.

Hopefully this elucidation makes it a lot clearer to be able to understand the finer points and inner workings of the hitherto most difficult branch of learning: Relativity.


1. Russo F.P.(1998) The Michelson-Morley experiment : the final solution? Speculations in Science and Technology, 21, 73-78.

2. Russo F.P.(1995) Analysis of Stellar Aberration yields the ‘real’ speed of Light. Speculations in Science and Technology,18, 200- 204.


3. Russo F.P.(1993) The required modifications for Relativity to be universal; Investigator Magazine; July 1993 (Supplement) . ISSN 1032-4704

4. Russo F.P.(1995) The truth about Gravity: unmasking the mystery! Investigator Magazine; September 1995; pp42-47. ISSN 1032-4704

5. Russo F.P.(1995) Experimental Evidence for Classical Relativity; Investigator Magazine; November 1995 pp47-49. ISSN 1032-4704

6. Stett B. (1997) Frank Russo Development; Investigator Magazine; March 1997 Editorial Comment; pg8. ISSN 1032-4704

7. Russo F.P.(1997) The Bending of Light; Investigator Magazine; July 1997; pg45. ISSN 1032-4704.

BACK TO ARTICLES: www.frankrusso.net/articles.html 

This page is copyright © Frank P Russo 1999-2003