Showing posts with label Edward Morley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward Morley. Show all posts

Sunday, November 30, 2025

Chapter 1: Section 7: Page 62: Line 111 (1093)

 "Yes yes but suppose, suppose when they split that light beam, that one half of it is Michelson's and the other is his partner Morley's, which turns out to be the half that comes back with the phases perfectly matched up—but under slightly different conditions, alternative axioms, there could be another pair that don't match up, see, in fact millions of pairs, that sometimes you could blame it on the Æther, sure, but other cases maybe the light goes someplace else, takes a detour and that's why it shows up late and out of phase, because it went where Blinky was when he was invisible, and—"

* * * * * * * * * *

When I signed up for Philosophy of Science my first year at Portland State University in 1989, this was the kind of shit I thought we would be discussing. I had yet to realize that I was more into literature than science so you'd have to forgive the naïve moron I was at seventeen. Instead, I was introduced to the world of "guys who think they're way fucking smarter than they really are". I met Cynical Dude Who Doesn't Trust Any Information Because He's Too Smart To Be Fooled and Devil's Advocate Dude Who Doesn't Need Evidence To Bolster His Anti-Arguments Against Everybody Else's Obviously Poorly Thought Out Conclusions and Smirking Asshat Who's Barely Capable Of An Intelligent Thought But Speaks As If His Words Should Be Worshiped and Philosophy Boils Down To Nothing Is Real So Why Even Bother Man. My contribution to the class was dropping it two weeks later. The moment that probably broke me was when Cynical Dude (or was it Why Even Bother Man?) pointed out we can't even believe that what we see on the other side of the window of our class on the third floor is real and I did not say, and it took a great effort to not say this, "Why don't you jump out the window and find out?"

I told that story to avoid actually thinking about Merle's conclusion. But if this One Line at a Time project is going to make any headway, I guess I have to just start diving in and burning out my brain stem.

"suppose when they split that light beam"
The experiment hasn't happened yet. This is Merle speculating on what will happen when they conduct it.

"one half of it is Michelson's and the other is his partner Morley's"
We're barely a fifth of the way through Merle's thought and he's already beginning to lose me. Why did he bring Michelson into it? I thought the split beam was part Morley and part Blinky? But now Merle's telling us the two halves of the split beam each represent a different experimenter? According to Merle's theory, Morley's beam comes back with the phases perfectly lined up. But perfectly lined up with what? Wouldn't that be Michelson's half of the beam? Am I missing that aside from the light splitting into two different beams, the source light also continues as a third beam? I've been staring at the diagram of the Michelson Interferometer and reading the text describing how it works for three times as long as the amount of time it took me to realize I wasn't going to comprehend it.
    But fine. We'll try to understand this as best we can, like a kid in a Science Without Math class. I mean, why bother at all if you have to leave the understanding of the basic foundation of it out? is what I always thought. But here I am, the dumb kid trying his best at partial comprehension!
    Merle's theory then: the bifurcated beam will match up perfectly at the destination. Then it's proved Æther doesn't exist. That would make it Michelson's beam. But, of course, since the experiment has yet to be run, there's the other possibility.

"but under slightly different conditions, alternative axioms, there could be another pair that don't match up"
Okay, sure. The conditions of the experiment might wind up proving the existence of Æther. The beams will not match up. This is Morley's beam. This is the beam that suggests one possibility can result in two outcomes. This becomes a philosophical discussion now on destiny versus divided timelines, free will versus predestination. A stable, ordered universe versus an unstable and chaotic one.

"in fact millions of pairs, that sometimes you could blame it on the Æther, sure"
See? This is sounding like the choices one makes across their lifetime. Millions of choices. Free will versus predestination. Æther versus non-Æther. But is there another possible and strangely paranormal idea rattling around in Merle's mind? If the beams go out of phase by the time they reach their destination, perhaps it isn't just because of the Æther? Perhaps the other reason is something we've seen earlier with Lew Basnight?

"other cases maybe the light goes someplace else, takes a detour and that's why it shows up late and out of phase"
In other words, the light doesn't get slowed down by the Æther and the Earth's movement and all that other stuff that the experiment is trying to prove. Perhaps the light has actually taken a detour through some other dimension, only to wind up late and out of phase and uncertain as to what sin has caused it to become a pariah? Or the light has begun as a scientist, gone out of reality, and come back as a fur thief, allowing for the scientist to remain being that the beam of light was split?

"it went where Blinky was when he was invisible"
In other words, Blinky hasn't constantly existed because Morley is the true self of the duo. Blinky is the split that goes in and out of reality based on the light's trajectory when sent through crystal. Of course, Blinky hasn't actually ever been invisible. That's just Merle's theory to explain why the cops have yet to catch him coming and going from his girl's brothel even though bribery explains the matter much easier.

Chapter 1: Section 7: Page 62: Line 110 (1092)

 "No, no couldn't be, Blinky's a natty dresser, whereas Professor Morley's attire is said to exhibit a certain tendency to the informal. . . ."

* * * * * * * * * *

Ed Addle's on the right track trying to disprove Merle's theory which lacks any evidence other than two guys have bushy mustaches. But to attack their difference on the way they dress? Is he getting at yet another aspect that resonates between the two figures? How does one come to terms with these divergent theories, one which states they're, according to Merle, so obviously the same person and the other, according to Ed, that they differ in so many (or just one: the way they dress) ways? Could this be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde allusion? The scientist and the violent criminal are one and the same, the two halves of the human condition, one light ray split into two parallel beams. Ed's argument that they can't be separate people because they dress so differently could hardly be said to be a literal argument that would hold any scientific water. So it must be figurative: they dress differently only because they represent different halves of the whole. Blinky's vulgar nature must be hidden behind fancy dress while the scientist cannot be bothered with appearance, too focused within the workings of the mind.

Saturday, November 15, 2025

Chapter 1: Section 7: Page 62: Line 109 (1091)

 "And they've both of 'em got long shaggy hair and big red mustaches—"

* * * * * * * * * *

Look, I saw pictures of these guys and even their hair and mustaches weren't really similar. If the only things you need for two people to practically be twins is the length of hair and the color of their mustaches, you've got a minor cognitive disorder. Face-blind Merle confirmed.

But since Pynchon is spending so much time on this theory, I suppose I'm convinced. I don't need any more proof than that Pynchon has turned it into a little dramatic scene between Merle and Ed.

Chapter 1: Section 7: Page 62: Line 108 (1090)

 Separated by a couple-three letters in name as if alphabetically double-refracted, you could say. . . .

* * * * * * * * * *

Let's not forget Merle's drunk while coming up with this theory lest we eviscerate him too harshly. But then I also shouldn't forget that Thomas Pynchon's books are historical fantasies where pretty much anything can be true. I already have no trouble believing that Lew Basnight can hop dimensions, traveling from one timeline to another, possibly even going from the real world to a work of fiction (as opposed to hopping from one fictional Chicago to another). I believe that Randolph St. Cosmo is an angel based on the character Orc from William Blake's America A Prophecy. I believe Pugnax, based on a cartoon character that doesn't yet exist in the novel's timeline, can read. Why shouldn't I also believe that Blinky Morgan and Edward Morley are the same person split in two by some kind of flesh double-refraction invention. Maybe Edward, as a small child, walked into a brick wall one day, diverting himself in one direction while Blinky bounced off at a perpendicular direction (or just came out through the other side?). This could explain why Blinky became a scofflaw and a thief because he found himself all alone and having to fend for himself at a young age. It's like that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where they find a clone of Riker stranded on a planet for years. A clone that, may I say, proves Barkley's theory correct that the Federation's teleportation system doesn't work as suspected; it's actually a suicide/cloning machine. It kills the real person and just creates a clone at the destination. How else can you explain a double-refracted William Riker creating Thomas Riker?

I will say the similar name minus the couple-three letters convinced me more than their pictures. That doesn't mean I'm gullible and easily convinced of bullshit; it just means the pictures look so dissimilar one to the other that the spelling of the names was a greater argument for the double-refraction. 

Chapter 1: Section 7: Page 62: Line 107 (1089)

 Professor Edward Morley and Charles "Blinky" Morgan were one and the same person!

* * * * * * * * * *

The important thing to remember here is that Merle Rideout is drunk.


Charles "Blinky" Morgan


Professor Edward Morley

I'm as sober as I usually am on a Saturday afternoon and I can almost see what Merle's talking about just via looks (Merle will have more reasons for his conclusion). If I were drunk (or quickly heading toward that state), I think I could also dismiss all the obvious differences in the look of these two, like length of hair, head shape, super different noses, mustache bushiness, chin and subsequent dimples, and eye size (just to mention a few. If I keep going, I might have to recant on my claim that I might think they look alike if I were drunk). If I were a modern face-blind person, I might even think these two pictures were practically the same person! But even Merle must have better reasons for deciding these two old timey guys were the same person.
    Oh! Is Pynchon telling us Merle is face-blind?!