A New Confirmation of the Presence of Two Errors in Michelson's Analysis of his MMX, on the PCR Academic Website, for Riverboats Contest Times Calculation, and A New Demonstration, Contradicting the Solution in Physics

Authors

  • Ioan Has Land Forces Academy “Nicolae Bălcescu”, Str. Revoluției 3–5, 550170 Sibiu, Romania; Str. Rapsodiei no. 6B, bl. Sof 1, sc. B, ap. 9, 240240 Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania Author
  • Simona Miclaus Land Forces Academy “Nicolae Bălcescu”, Str. Revoluției 3–5, 550170 Sibiu, Romania Author
  • Aurelian Has Independent Researcher, Str. Republicii no. 1, bl. R18, sc. B, ap. 2, 240264 Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47363/JPSOS/2026(8)376

Keywords:

Errors in Michelson’s Analysis, Traversing River Boats Contest, Two Swimmers Contest as MMX Model, New Correct Calculus of Boat Contest, Academic Physics Website, Physics Textbook Errors Correction

Abstract

We developed a New Interpretation of Michelson’s analysis (NI16) of his experiments (MMX) by identifying and correcting Errors 1 and 2 (MER12) in the analysis (not in the experiment itself), including its faithful model based on the Two Swimmers Contest (TSC).

In NI16, Demonstrations 1, 2, and 3 were presented, all of which proved the equality of the total times, t1 = t2 (no winner), in the Water Frame (WF). However, this result contradicts current physics textbooks (PTB), which state the inequality t2 < t1 and conclude that the transverse swimmer (SW2) wins the contest. This conclusion is also applied to MMX.

Recently, we discovered that a numerical calculation similar to that presented in NI16 appears on the Physics Classroom (PCR) website. The calculation concerns Example 1 (EX1), involving the first crossing of a river 80 m wide with a current speed of 3m/s by a motorboat (BO2) moving at 4 m/s relative to the water. This calculation faithfully follows the rules of plane vector analysis and yields a first crossing time of t2a= 20.0s.

This result in PCR completely corresponds to the procedures and times obtained in NI16 within the WF. In contrast, the corresponding time given in PTB is t2a = 30.20s. The resulting round-trip time is therefore t2= 60.4s, whereas for BO1 the calculated time is t1 = 91.4s. Thus, t1 > t2, SW2 wins the TSC, and, according to our analysis, the PTB treatment should be corrected.

Therefore, the PCR website provides Confirmation 4 of the correctness of NI16. Furthermore, based on a new geometric route for BO2 in the Bank Frame (BF), a trigonometric calculation yields t2 = t1, as obtained in NI16. This calculation therefore constitutes Demonstration 5 of the correctness of NI16 and, according to the authors, supports the reintroduction of the ether concept into physics, with numerous potential consequences.

Author Biographies

  • Ioan Has, Land Forces Academy “Nicolae Bălcescu”, Str. Revoluției 3–5, 550170 Sibiu, Romania; Str. Rapsodiei no. 6B, bl. Sof 1, sc. B, ap. 9, 240240 Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania

    Ioan Has, Land Forces Academy “Nicolae Bălcescu”, Str. Revoluției 3–5, 550170 Sibiu, Romania; Str. Rapsodiei no. 6B, bl. Sof 1, sc. B, ap. 9, 240240 Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania.

  • Simona Miclaus, Land Forces Academy “Nicolae Bălcescu”, Str. Revoluției 3–5, 550170 Sibiu, Romania

    Land Forces Academy “Nicolae Bălcescu”, Str. Revoluției 3–5, 550170 Sibiu, Romania

  • Aurelian Has, Independent Researcher, Str. Republicii no. 1, bl. R18, sc. B, ap. 2, 240264 Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania

    Independent Researcher, Str. Republicii no. 1, bl. R18, sc. B, ap. 2, 240264 Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania

Downloads

Published

2026-06-15

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 6 (2026): Volume 8 Issue 6

Section

Articles