Michelson-Morley experiment: can it really disprove ether?

Dear Hüseyin,

The Michelson-Morley shows clearly that the velocity of the Earth was not possible to be added to the one of the light as the usual Galileo's vector velocities do. The direction of the velocities of light don't give any contribution with respect to the velocity of the Earth with respect to the aether wind suporting the light. The idea is that the light would be always moving with the aether and the Earth moves with respect to it too. But it happens such a thing and in fact Einstein understood that the aether didn't exist or at least we don't need it for the propagation of the electromagnetic field. This experiment was made in 1887 but since then it was made in many different forms that always gives a null result respect to the motion with respect to it.

Therefore the Michelson-Morley disproves the existance of aether understood as the material medium where the light has a relative velocity zero, or what is the same the medium needed for propagating the electromagnetic waves.

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your answer.

You have repeated what all special relativity books write, but you haven't addressed the point of my objection. Here it is again: Ether, if existed, it should be like a fluid, in order to permit all the dynamics of the universe. And Michelson Morley's experiment cannot defeat it, because the fluid ether will move along with the earth, like the atmosphere moving with the earth, so there will not be relative motion between the earth and the ether on the surface of the earth. Ether, if exists, would stand still in the parts of the universe where there is no moving objects, but because of its fluidity, it would move along with the objects when it is near them and it can be stirred and can flow like a fluid.

Dear Hüseyin,

The idea of the aether is not a fluid interacting with matter in the form that you say. This is not the aether. The aether is, as I have written in the previous post, a material medium where the light moves as a wave. This means that the velocity of the light with respect to such a medium is zero. Thus the Earth has two possibilities following you:

1. The Earth doesn't move with respect to the aether, because it interacts with it and in fact the Earth carries part of the aether with it. Is that your assumption? This is not so simple to accept because the frequency of light without losses don't allow it. In fact the aether cannot be a fluid and it is quite rigid solid but with "special properties" for allowing the free motion within it.

2. The Earth moves with respect to aether without interaction (notice that interaction means also losses too which are not possible) and this is the usual case accepted in its different versions.

Dear Daniel,

By aether I mean a medium that permeates the universe and is capable of transmitting electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves and the forces of nature. I am not bound by the definition of it as being 'a quite rigid solid with "special properties" for allowing the free motion within it'. Rather, I would like to consider the possibility of an aether perhaps like a gel fluid, which may become an elastic solid when it is not dragged by moving matter, which may perhaps change phases when interacting with matter. Remember, Fizeau found that moving water can alter the speed of light by a factor of 0.435 times its velocity. This could very well be the coefficient which the water can drag the aether. So while Michelson's experiment cannot refute this type of aether I just described, Fizeau's experiment seems to support it.

Dear Hüseyin,

You are inventing and imagining an aether. Notice that this medium was born for explaining the propagation of the electromagnetic waves. What is the Young modulus for such a medium?

Dear Daniel,

The propagation of electromagnetic waves cannot be explained by regarding them as a simple mechanical wave propagating through aether. Remember that electromagnetic and gravitational waves propagate through the same medium. So the medium must have many different aspects to propagate these waves plus relating the electrical, magnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces.

I will tell you a different possibility for the "solidness" that you require for aether to transmit light: Imagine how iron powder is alined on magnetic field lines of a magnet and in a way becomes solid. In a similar way, it may well be possible that liquid aether aligns with gravitational field of masses (which is everywhere) and shows the properties of solid, while it can also be dragged by moving objects or mediums.

By the way, I just came across an online paper which shows that Fitzeau did not take the additional phase shift because of the doppler effect from the moving water and that when it is taken into account, one can see the complete drag of light (so the aether) along with water. Here is the link to that paper:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/1768/Gennadiy, Sokolov

Dear Hüseyin,

Don't look for Fitzeau experiment because it only proves that the aether is not necessary. The electromagnetic and gravitational waves also don't need the aether too. So what I was trying is to show you that the historical aether is not necessary at all and even contradictory if we think that it is material. Obviously you have all the right to try fo find it. Good luck!

Dear Hüseyin Göksu,

“Michelson-Morley experiment: can it really disprove ether? ”

any experiment doesn’t prove or disprove some human’s suggestion/hypothesis/model, etc. That humans make, interpreting experiments outcomes. Including in the case of the MM experiment the canceling of the ether was postulated by Einstein in 1905, when the absolute Matter’s spacetime was cancelled also, what was necessary to postulate the total and complete equivalence of all/every inertial reference frames. These basic SR postulates are evidently wrong, because of from them, and so from the SR, any number of evidently logical and physical meaningless consequences directly and unambiguously follow.

In the reality Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container, where Matter exists and constantly changes; and there are a lot of reasons to suggest that this container indeed is filled by the dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements, i.e. by the ether.

All /every material objects, particles, bodies, etc., are some disturbances in the ether, and move in it with 4D speeds that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light. Photons move in the 3D space only, so, by other words, this ether is “everyferous” instead of the “luminiferous” ether 1905.

More about the lattice see, for example SS posts in

More concretely about the MM experiment [why it doesn't "disprove ether"] see SS posts at least on the last page in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_special_relativity_be_categorized_as_metaphysics?view=5b0d29e88272c9ea0b387816

And papers that are linked in the posts

Cheers

HG: Michelson-Morley experiment: can it really disprove ether?

It is a common misconception that the MMX disproved any aether, what it proved was only that, if there was an aether, it had to be Lorentz Invariant.

Eddington's measurement of the bending of starlight that showed GR was a better description of gravity and GR reduces to SR in the limit of negligible gravity, that was the route that caused the aether to be retired.

HG: If there is ether that permeates the whole universe, it should better be like a liquid rather than a solid at rest.

Light supports polarisation hence it is a transverse wave. Liquids have no shear strength so do not support transverse waves, sound passing through a liquid is a longitudinal wave.

HG: It should better move with the earth like the atmosphere.

That would eliminate stellar aberration but that is observed.

I have explained how MMX and stellar aberration are useless in relation to the ether wind. Indications can instead be found in GPS system, GPS clocks, Pioneer anomaly, fly-by anomaly and gravitational anomalies during solar eclipses.

You can see details regarding my ideas at:

John-Erik Persson

Hi all,

I believe it's of interest to compare the speed of the relative measurements, that we are able to do, relative to the light speed. The difference appearing in the gamma-factor are so small that we are still no ale to make a definite statement.

A possible experiment to day is to send a space craft with a precise clock and make it travel parallel with the direction of earth, compared with the only possible reference frame, i.e. the Micro Wave Background Radiation.

In one direction the clock should go slower and in the opposite direction it should go faster.

The result would give a definite answer to the question.

JES

GD: Light supports polarisation hence it is a transverse wave. Liquids have no shear strength so do not support transverse waves, sound passing through a liquid is a longitudinal wave.

I already refuted this in one of my messages apparently overlooked. Here it is again: "

Imagine how iron powder aligns on magnetic field lines of a magnet and in a way becomes solid. In a similar way, the ether may align with gravitational field of masses (which is everywhere) and other force fields, while relating them. So this ordered ether will show the properties of an elastic solid and it will also be dragged by these fields when the source of the fields move. So it will be ordered but liquid too.

GD: That would eliminate stellar aberration but that is observed.

I don't see how this eliminates stellar aberration.

HG: Imagine how iron powder aligns on magnetic field lines of a magnet and in a way becomes solid. In a similar way, the ether may align with gravitational field of masses (which is everywhere) and other force fields, while relating them. So this ordered ether will show the properties of an elastic solid ...

At any location where it became liquid, light could no longer propagate through it as a transverse wave. We see that in seismic waves, it would have to have the properties of a solid everywhere or we couldn't see distant galaxies.

HG: ... and it will also be dragged by these fields when the source of the fields move. So it will be ordered but liquid too.

GD: That would eliminate stellar aberration but that is observed.

HG: I don't see how this eliminates stellar aberration.

When the light enters the dragged region, it is then translating with the medium so would move directly down a telescope immersed in that medium hence there would be no aberration. Aberration was measured and explained by Bradley in 1728 so was well known long before the Michelson-Morley experiment.

GD: At any location where it became liquid, light could no longer propagate through it as a transverse wave. We see that in seismic waves, it would have to have the properties of a solid everywhere or we couldn't see distant galaxies.

There is no location in the universe where there is no gravitational field, therefore the ether will always be ordered, acting like an elastic solid. It will also be in motion following the evolution of the gravitational field and motion of celestial bodies like earth. The aligning of the ether with gravitational field sheds light to transmission of the force of gravity too just like iron powder aligns with and transmits magnetic field. Ether should have multiple characteristics to show similar response to electrical and nuclear force fields. Remember, fields are everywhere...

The M,M experiment is generally thought to disprove the (Lorentz) aether. And the Einstein's Special relativity seemed to remove the need for it.

But Lorentz with the aid of Poincaré produced a modification of the Lorentz theory (containing an aether) which actually was submitted for publication before Special Relativity came out. But SR appeared in publication before the Lorentz-Poincaré paper appeared. So the L-P paper (though in complete agreement with SR) was largely ignored. Interestingly, in his later life, Einstein himself suggested that one should look again at the idea of an aether.

One could (and indeed some people, including myself do) consider space-time itself to act as an aether (e.g. 'Stochastic Space-time and Quantum Theory, by Carlton Frederick, Phys. Rev. 1976).

Hi all,

The SR is presented as a problem of different views between two reference systems. But, if we use the famous twin paradox as example, this works well only between two reference system! If you add a third reference system, then you get immediately into problems. I suggest for example, one twin is traveling away in a straight line from earth. He then stops and turns back to earth. This means that in the reference of the ship he is always accelerating, only the direction change. If you now add a third reference system, let us say another planet, with a clock, situated far away and perpendicular to the ships velocity. What is each reference system measuring, I intend here the clocks in each system, you can eventually add a signal sending the respective clock time between the different systems.

Have fun,

JES

“….But Lorentz with the aid of Poincaré produced a modification of the Lorentz theory (containing an aether) which actually was submitted for publication before Special Relativity came out. But SR appeared in publication before the Lorentz-Poincaré paper appeared.”

H. Poincaré June 5, 1905 “Sur la dynamique del’électron” June 5, 1905

Comptes Rendues , 1905, V 140, p1504 publised 05 June 1905

Einstein, A. (1905), Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Ann. Phys., 322: 891–921. doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004 received 30 of June 1905

Returning to the thread question, what are Lorentz transformations and why in MM experiment the interferometer’s arms really become be contracted see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628

As to the twin paradox see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.34064.51201/1

Cheers

The interpretation of MMX is in error. Since mirrors define wave vector and not the sum of wave vector and ether wind, there is no ether wind effect in the transverse arm. A correct interpretation of MMX gives doubled Lorentz contraction and no time dilation. this supports the Galilei transform. The Lorentz transform is in error.

See my blog at: http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/

Regards

John-Erik Persson

PS

This mistake was done when Einstein was a child by the majority of Michelson's colleges.

John-Erik

".... Since mirrors define wave vector and not the sum of wave vector and ether wind, ...

The 4D ether indeed wth a large probability exists, however in the ether there are no ""winds"; particles, bodies, etc. simply are some disturbamces in the ether, which move in it.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

A timely question as I just published a paper that addressed this issue and makes a good argument that dark matter is the ether. The MMX as well as others provided an excellent confirmation of special relativity and showed how using classical mechanics produces ambiguous conclusions. Special relativity is general in nature and is true whether there is an ether or not.

See the following paper for more insight:

The paper also makes a reasonable argument that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon as one might expect since it propagates at the speed of light.

Keith Lyon

Sergey

Does the mirrors define wave vector or the sum of wave vector and ether wind?

John-Erik

If light from a star were propagating through a medium (“ether”) and if that medium, when close to Earth, were dragged along by the motion of the Earth’s surface, there would be no relative velocity between ether and Earth's surface. That's a reasonable assumption (it's how a fluid behaves when an object moves through it - there's a 'boundary layer'). It would account for the null result of the M-M experiment. But then there would be no “stellar aberration”.

"In my own development Michelson’s result has not had a considerable influence. I even do not remember if I knew of it at all when I wrote my first paper on the subject (1905). The explanation is that I was, for general reasons, firmly convinced that there does not exist absolute motion and my problem was only how this could be reconciled with our knowledge of electro-dynamics. One can therefore understand why in my personal struggle Michelson’s experiment played no role or at least no decisive role." − Einstein 1942

Dear John-Erik,

“…Does the mirrors define wave vector or the sum of wave vector and ether wind?..”

There are no winds in the ether, the ether is a “static” 4D lattice of the 4D fundamental logical elements, where, for example, particles are specific disturbances. I.e. they are some close-loop algorithms that run on “hardware” of flipping sequent neighbor [next] FLEs, so the particle moves in the lattice as a “flipping FLE point”, moving so as a 4D “helix”. Bodies are some systems of the particles.

Including photons move as 4D flipping point helixes withthe speed 2^1/2c [so 'the front of the helix" moves with 4D speed of light], but since we can observe only in the 3D space, their 3D projection seems as 3D wave. Having rest mass particles if move in the absolute 3D space [they can be at the absolute 3D rest in the space and so move only along the 4-th, i.e., coordinate time dimension, with the speed of light], the spatial projection is the de Broglie wave.

I have serious problems in life that I'm forced write on the REG time to time about, including now at access to the Net, so can write only short posts; so more see the links in the SS posts.

Cheers

Sergey

The ether wind is caused by the motion of the observer in relation to the ether.

John-Erik

John-Erik,

“…The ether wind is caused by the motion of the observer in relation to the ether…”

again, FLEs’ flipping point moves through the FLE-ether so, that after a next FLE switches the other all they remain on their places in the lattice; no “wind” appear. As, say, when a car moves on a way, there is no “the way’s wind”.

Again, to understand what is the mechanics, including why the MM interferometer’s arms rotate in the (X, cτ) plain and so they occupay the really “contracted” spatial distance in the motion direction, see, at least, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628

To obtain practically all equations, including the Lorentz transformations, is enough to know only Pythagoras theorem [though to obtain E=mc² is necessary to be able to integrate].

Cheers

Call contemporary relativistic quantum electrodynamics "relativistic quantum theory of ether", and nobody is the wiser.

Eric Lord

That is not true. Transverse ether wind cannot change the real orientation of the wave fronts. Such changes are only caused by the gradient in longitudinal ether wind. Small effects. However, observer motion u changes relative light motion from c to c-u. If aberration was caused by ether wind v it would have opposite sign. Therefore, speed is not changed to sqrt(c²-v²), but to sqrt(c²+u²). So, stellar aberration is an illusion due to own motion independent of ether wind.

Regards

John-Erik

There is an aether-like entity (universal medium), structured by quanta of matter and fills entire space outside the most basic 3D matter-particles. Although it has no physical states, it acts like a perfect liquid. To and fro motions of quanta of matter within the structure of universal medium push basic 3D matter-particles of a body to move the whole body, while the universal medium itself remains more or less steady in space. To and fro motions of quanta of matter within the structure of universal medium create transfer of distortions in the region of universal medium surrounding a moving object. These distortions carry whole body in its motion. Light radiated in any direction near the surface of earth is affected identically and will not differ in their frequencies or phases. As there is no relative motion between earth and universal medium in its immediate surroundings, Michelson-Morley experiment cannot detect intended result. See: http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0069, ‘MATTER (Re-examined)’.

Sergey

Michelson stated no effect in transverse arm in MMX. This follows from the fact that the mirrors define wave fronts to be parallel to mirrors. Michelson's contemporaries were all wrong when they together voted for an effect in transverse arm. Therefore, the Lorentz transform is in error.

Regards

John-Erik

John-Eric,

“….Michelson stated no effect in transverse arm in MMX. This follows from the fact that the mirrors define wave fronts to be parallel to mirrors….”

That isn’t so. The light in moving interferometer moves in transverse direction not only “up and down”, it moves through some triangle, and so its wave front isn’t parallel to mirrors.

Again, the longitudinal arm indeed is shorter in the 3D space then if it is in the transverse position, see the SS posts here and the links in the posts. Possibly utmost simple can be first 6 pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709

Cheers

Sergey

Who made you to think so?

John-Erik

Dear All,

In the MMX we have two directions. We have the X direction and the Y direction. Light is emitted in the positive X direction reflects half to the positive Y direction. Both half beams are reflected and combined to the negative Y direction.

When the setup is moving in the positive X direction with respect to any aether, then the wavelength of the light in the positive X direction is blue shifted. At arrival at the moving wave splitter the diverted light to the positive Y direction is redshifted to the original wavelength. It will travel slightly forward to meet the moving Y direction mirror. The forward light will meet the positive X direction mirror and will bounce back with a double redshifted wavelength. Both beams will meet the splitter. Here the Y direction beam will transfer without change. The X direction beam will meet a moving mirror and will get blue shifted to the same wavelength as the Y direction beam.

The path length in the X direction, with blue shifted and redshifted light would result in slightly more waves than if there would be no movement through the aether. But the whole setup itself is moving through the aether. As a result the X direction length is contracted so much that the deviation in wavelength is exactly compensated. It will give a null result to, as it seems, 10²⁸ to 1 accuracy.

Rotating the setup will modify the redshift blueshift but also the length contraction and as a result we can't detect the aether.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Thierry

As I said earlier; and also Michelson said, in contrast to his colleges: the mirrors define wave vector c and not vector sum c+v. Therefore, no effect in the transverse arm in MMX.

Although MMX did not give any empirical results, nevertheless expectations about MMX seems to have supported the absurd Lorentz transform.

John-Erik

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Thierry>: So, you deny that light would be affected by a traversal motion of the ether? That seems plausible, especially at such short distances.

I deny nothing. I state that a moving setup will result in a transversal motion of the light that includes to the overall null result. All together will result in no change of the fringes for any relative speed of the aether.

The MMX experiment can't detect an aether.

That an aether exists can be proven with a spinning rod. But then again it will not help you to measure the single direction light speed.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

If one thinks in the spirit of "( x(t2) - x(t1) ) / ( t2 - t1 )" and states that an object A has a velocity relative to object B, then it is tacitly assumed that object B, which exists at time t1, still exists at the later time t2.

However, if B does not exist any more at this time t2, then "( x(t2) - x(t1) ) / ( t2 - t1 )" makes no sense and thereby the question of motion of A relative to B makes no sense.

With respect to an alleged ether this means that it makes no sense to ask for a motion or a velocity of any object ( e.g. a 'photon' ) relative to this ether, provided that this ether consists of most extremely fluctuating el. charged massless dipole objects, which permanently collapse and extend at a most highest rate. Therefore, one should not expect that the existence of such a kind of an alleged ether can be proved or disproved by experiments of the Michelson-Morley type.

John-Eric [and Paul, though],

“...it moves through some triangle..

Who made you to think so?…”

Myself made; and that is so – see Paul’s

“…the diverted light to the positive Y direction is redshifted to the original wavelength. It will travel slightly forward to meet the moving Y direction mirror….”

In the case “only up and down” light motion in moving interferometer light doesn’t hit in the instruments mirrors and fringe detector.

However, returning to the thread question the Paul’s

“…But the whole setup itself is moving through the aether. As a result the X direction length is contracted so much that the deviation in wavelength is exactly compensated. It will give a null result to, as it seems, 1028 to 1 accuracy. Rotating the setup will modify the redshift blueshift but also the length contraction and as a result we can't detect the aether….”

isn’t completely correct, in sense that to assert so previously is necessary to define – what is “aether”?; thus it is non-understandable why “moving of the setup” results in the X direction length contracting.

In the reality MM experiment didn’t attempt to observe an ether, its aim was observing of the absolute Earth motion, at least evident motion on its orbit around Sun. The motion relating to ether was a next effect, since in those times physicists thought that the ether is at the absolute rest in the absolute Matter’s spacetime; and just so Einstein in 1905 cancelled both, the absolute space/spacetime and so the luminiferous aether, that was necessary for the postulates about the constancy of the speed of light was “indeed fundamental” to be a cause of contractions of lengths, slowing clocks tick rates, etc.

And indeed till now there aren’t any experiments that contain data with direct detecting of an ether. Including in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky physical model above formally there is no necessity in the FLE lattice/ether. FLE-algorithms, i.e. particles, in principle, can move as the FLE flipping point in the empty spacetime just as in the ether [see the SS posts above]; and rigid bodies will rotate in the (X, cτ) plain, so the numerous “MM experiment” versions will not detect the absolute motion; the arms will be contracted correspondingly also.

In the model the FlE lattice is introduced because of it seems simplifies the Matter’s creation, if there is no lattice, then “Creator” was forced to make every particle “individually”, what seems as rather non-convenient, it seems as much simpler the version when firstly the lattice was made; and in the next step the huge portion of Energy was pumped in the lattice, what resulted in appearance of Matter [see of the absolutely fundamental Quantioty “Energy” was pumped, more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute , Sec. 6.1.3. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe” and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics , at least Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles”.]

Cheers

Thierry and Paul

Defining c not c+v means: no effect in transverse arm; and also: no ether wind effect in stellar aberration. Only observer motion is relevant. for stellar aberration.

Atoms control separations in a crystal by effects on the ether transmitted forth and back between atoms. MMX is based on periodic effects transmitted forth and back between mirrors. This means that change in 2-way speed of light is compensated by contraction of bodies (not space), that is 2 times the FitzGerald contraction. This means: compensated effect in the longitudinal arm.

Michelson was right ans all his colleges were wrong regarding transverse arm.

MMX and stellar aberration are both useless, and we do not need them, since GPS can, and already has, measured 1-way light speed.

Regards

John-Erik

Dear Prof. Hüseyin,

Your question is similar in many ways to another on this site: 'Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?' by Abdul Malek.

In my opinion, the answer to both questions is to reconsider the entrained ether paradigm which is essentially what you have suggested.

There are two modern versions of this ether concept (that I am aware of):

The late Prof. Petr Beckmann proposed in his 1987 book “Einstein Plus Two” an ether model that is stationary with respect to the gravitational force field and extends out to where the gravitational field of the Sun becomes dominant. He provided alternative explanations for the phenomena that are customarily cited as supporting Special Relativity. He also derived the Schrödinger equation based on his model.

In 2001, the late Prof. Ching-Chuan Su published a paper describing an ether concept he called the Local-Ether model (at http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf). He postulated that every astronomical body is surrounded by a local-ether halo that is associated with the body’s gravitational potential field and that extends out to where the local-ether/gravitational potential of another body becomes dominant (about one million km for the earth). He also provided alternative explanations to relativistic phenomena including many that were not addressed by Beckmann. Please also see his 2005 "Quantum Electromagnetics" (at http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw) for further details on how he provides alternative explanations of additional phenomena and how he extends his model to unify quantum and gravitational phenomena.

As you are aware, postulating that the ether is like a liquid is customarily dismissed because it doesn’t support transverse waves. I agree with you that we can’t assume that the detailed properties of the ether are exact analogies of the properties of familiar macroscopic substances like incompressible fluids or solids. To assume we know what its properties are at this stage is like trying to run before we can crawl. A property of the ether could be that it supports transverse modulations when a local electric field is present. Have you heard of liquid crystals?

It's like trying to define dark matter. We can say it has certain properties from observations of galaxies and galactic clusters for example but we cannot say much else for certain. Current mainstream wisdom assumes it is a strange new particle. As an aside, I suggest that dark matter IS the ether.

It is my understanding that Einstein's Special Relativity is based on the Lorentz transformation. And the Lorentz transformation was invented to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. And the Lorentz transformation is based on the postulates that there is a universal ether that behaves like an ideal frictionless incompressible fluid that the earth flows through without interacting.

The mainstream and even most that question Einstein’s Relativity are fixated on this model. My opinion is that we need a “paradigm shift” and that this alternative ether model could be the answer.

As Thierry De Mees points out: “Hence, many possibilities remain open w.r.t. aether, and an aether as you imagine it, connected to the gravity potential, is perfectly complying with Michelson's experiment.”

Based on the Beckmann/Su models, I (and others) predict that a Michelson-Morley type experiment performed in low earth orbit would have a positive result equivalent to the orbital velocity of the spacecraft (about 7.5 km/sec). This would be very persuasive evidence that there is an ether carried with the earth that is stationary with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial Frame (the ECI) and that Special Relativity is invalid.

Also note that Beckmann’s and Su’s ether models are compliant with stellar aberration: The alteration/aberration of the angle of the phase fronts of light from a distant star takes place at the boundary of the ether halo surrounding the earth and stays altered until the phase fronts reach the Earth’s surface.

For further details, please see my article at https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-viable-alternative-to-Special-Relativity-and-a-crucial-experiment-to-test-it.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

James Marsen

You mentioned Dr C C Su. I think he has suggested an interesting method to detect 1-way light speed. It was a scaled down version of de Witte's method, transformed from microwaves to HeNe laser wavelength. The length of measurements was changed from kilometers to meters. So, the direction of measurements could be changed.

John-Erik

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Thierry>: Do you claim that the speed of light is invariant with the aether in the setup because the mirror defines c? What about the increased path length in the Y direction between the mirrors, as claimed by the relativists? Why is this false?

I don't claim that there is no increased path length in the Y direction. I only claim that that extra length does not give and extra partial wave because the wavelength changes. The experiment does not measure light speed but tries to compare the phase of the two waves. If one light part that traveled the X direction comes earlier than the counter part that traveled the Y direction but their phase rotation is such that they are perfectly in phase after recombining then there are still no fringe shifts.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Thierry

There is no increased pathlength, since light behavior does not depend on the motion of the source. See my blog.

John-Erik

Thierry

Since it was assumed that light moves in relation to the ether and independent of the source motion in the longitudinal X direction we must assume the same in the transverse Y direction. Therefore, if the equipment has a motion in relation to the ether in transverse Y arm this cannot change the behavior of light. No increased path length, as Michelson said in contrast to all his contemporaries. Michelson alone was right.

John-Erik

Dear Thierry,

What might be going on if during an interaction of a "photon" with some atoms the "photon" meets the "ether", too, depends on the substantial nature of the "photon" and the substantial nature of an alleged "ether". The idea of "ether" of being something that can "flow" like a fluid or gas ( relative to some material object ) might be completely wrong. "Ether" might be a thing which behaves like a highly chaotically fluctuating medium, where traditional and ordinary kinematical concepts and notions cannot be applied at all.

Best regards,

Karl

Thierry

The wave fronts in the transverse arm Y are always parallel to mirrors before and after reflection independent of ether wind. So, all diagrams of MMX (and later also light clocks) have been in error for 120 years.

Light takes the fastest way between mirrors.

Light direction os defined by mirrors orientation and does not depend on translational equipment motion in any direction.

Wave fronts are relevant (and described by their normals) in coherent systems like telescopes and interferometers.

See http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7294

It is a pity that you have not the time to read your own database.

Regards

John-Erik

Eric Lord

I agree that the results from MMX played no role directly. However, in my opinion the more than 100 year old misunderstanding that there is an ether wind effect in the transverse arm also supported the Lorentz transform. The ether related wave motion does not change with equipment motion in longitudinal. The same must therefore be assumed in the transverse arm and therefore no effect of ether wind in transverse arm.

Regarding this means that we should have doubled contraction of bodies and no time dilation.

Regards

John-Erik

Thierry

The mirror position is not relevant, since it is motions inside the mirrors plane. What is relevant is mirrors orientations and ether state of motion. I did not say no ether but irrelevant ether wind inside the mirrors planes.

Coherent and phase sensitive systems we compare phase. So, only wave fronts are relevant, and we can only see the wave front normal, the ray direction. Therefore, in telescopes and interferometers the relevant model for light motion is c(1+v.cos(a)/c). The vector sum c+v is only relevant if you detect by amplitude and observe beam direction. We need 2 models for light motion.

Not observing this distinction created the illusion of an effect in transverse arm. See my article When Physics Went Wrong.

Regards

John-Erik

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Thierry>: I agree for the longitudinal Doppler effect. However, relativists claim that light is entrained by the aether, so there is entrainment between the mirrors on the Y axis. What about that?

I have problems to understand what in detail you mean by entertainment. What I am sure about is that seen from the frame of reference where the MMX is at rest the light waves will go perpendicular to the mirrors in the Y direction. This means that in the frame of a possible aether the light will move together with the MMX experiment. Then the angle of entry is angle of exit and the light moves after reflection gain with the MMX experiment.

This means however that, as seen from the Aether frame, the wavefront inside the Y arm is not perpendicular to the moving Y axis. But because, under the assumption that the speed of light is always C, the time is manipulated the level of simultaneity of the MMX frame is not the same as the level of simultaneity of the aether frame and thus in the MMX frame the light wave is interpreted as perpendicular. That means that only the longer wavelength remains.

Best regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

No, but who gives a cent for it? Nobody!

Thierry

Instead of the assumed effect 10^-8 due to planet motion there is an effect about 10^-12 due to planet rotation. However, without time dilation and doubled contraction of matter this effect is equal to the reduction of 2-way light sped and thereby compensated. So, compensated in one arm and nonexistent in the other arm means not detectable. MMX is useless.

Regards from _____________ John-Erik

PS

Detection by phase means also that ether wind cannot cause stellar aberration. There is no real wave front bending due to ether wind; only apparent bending due observer motion. Stellar aberration is also useless.

GPS has detected an effect of first order equal to 10^-6.

DS

Thierry

No, you were probably right. However, I do not see such thought experiments very useful.

John-Erik

Thierry

You said changing length of Y. No you say changing orientation?

John-Erik

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Thierry>: " entrainment " or " drag ".

It seems to me that you just explain the Lorentz contraction by calling it instead a time correction, in order to get again a steady c and perpendicular trajectories. This results again in a relativistic interpretation that ignores the ether and changes time and hence length, doesn't it?

I don't try to ignore the aether. I only try to convey that there is no experiment that can show you what the speed of light through the aether is. That does not deny the aether. I wish I could find an experiment. I did try to do that with a spinning rod and had to conclude that is again would not help me to detect a one way speed of light. However I can only explain why I can't detect a one way speed of light, with a spinning rod as time base for simultaneity between points, when I assume the existence of an aether.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Thierry

No, entrained ether means no effect of orbiting Earth. However, there is effect of rotating Earth. In reality Earth is entrained by ether instead, and Earth only entrain the field that Earth is generating. I said: no effect in transverse arm and no time dilation, and instead doubled FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is compensated by reduction of 2-way light speed. Speed 10^-4 times c does not exist and speed 10^-6 times c is compensated. So, MMX cannot detect anything. Stellar aberration cannot detect anything either; instead observer motion is the reason to aberration.

Read my comments again and take a look at When Physics Went Wrong.

Regards

John-Erik

Paul

GPS has detected receiver motions caused by the rotation of our planet. This is 1-way speed of light. Dr C C Su has suggested how 1-way light speed can be detected by changing de Witte's method from microwaves to laser frequency.

Regards

John-Erik Persson

Dear All,

Using the least number of untested assumptions and utilizing the critical property of the known existing physical particle neutrinos, I hypothesized that magnetic monopole tachyonic neutrinos must be the essential physical elements of aether.

The physical properties of neutrinos are still not very well understood. Its mass, predominant location of existence (in case they are normal particles) and electromagnetic property are all still unknown.

In my paper "Neutrinos must be Tachyons" I provided detailed arguments why they have to be tachyons. One crucial missing link I had to come up with was that they(neutrinos) have to be magnetic monopoles to connect everything together and make sense out of it without contradicting the well known and tested physical facts.

The fast moving tachyonic magnetic monopoles seems to be the perfect medium that can carry electromagnetic waves without contradiction because the empty space happened to be electromagnetic soup bubble that has extreme high tension trying to maintain equilibrium caused by any local disturbances. So the local electromagnetic disturbance travels space like the sound wave travels through the glass. Light doesn't travel empty space. It travels electromagnetically charged medium that has extremely high rigidity.

Later I realized that this could be the cause of quantum mechanical phenomena as well. The random spiral electric field created by the traveling individual magnetic monopoles will be so chaotic that it will make charged quantum particles (like electrons) not being able to stay put in the same location. Of course this is exactly the property we need to explain quantum phenomena. The uncertainty principle is the result of this random motion of tachyonic magnetic monopole neutrinos.

Instead of attempting mathematical unification of the interactions of electromagnetism and gravity, this conceptual unification seems to work much better. It happens that gravity is the density effect of this tachyonic neutrinos in the space caused by the fact that neutrinos still can not penetrate through hadronic particles. In other words, protons and neutrons are still impenetrable tiny local space for neutrinos. And this void creates density inhomogeneity for the tachyonic neutrinos in space and that is the cause of gravitational effect. The less the local density of the tachyonic neutrinos, the greater it becomes a gravity center. Perhaps the center of black hole may be totally void of this tachyonic neutrinos or very close to it.

All these concepts are explained in detail in my book "Physics of the New Millennium, Birth of the New Paradigm"

Does anybody find inconsistencies in this theory with the well known and verified physical facts?

EJ

John-Erik Persson

John>: GPS has detected receiver motions caused by the rotation of our planet. This is 1-way speed of light. Dr C C Su has suggested how 1-way light speed can be detected by changing de Witte's method from microwaves to laser frequency.

One calls this frame dragging and the other explains it by a different reason. Referred to the cosmic microwave background radiation CMBR we move with about 368±2 km/sec through space. I think that is a best candidate to indicate something about an absolute movement. Setting up an MMX experiment will not disclose the aether. This to extreme accuracy. That does not make any conclusion about the aether. It only makes a conclusion that the experiment does not measure a constant aether speed. So with relation to the question of this thread I would answer the MMX can't disprove the aether. My simple spinning cylinder though experiment only would work if there is an aether. There is extreme little chance that a spinning cylinder would behave different from the prediction and thus I would say that an aether is extremely likely to exist.

I don't know what is the de Witte method.

Regards

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

de Witte used 2 atomic clocks separated many km and connected over a cable. de Witte connected 2 lasers over optical fibers, so he could reduce the distance of measurements to a couple of meters.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson,

And what did de Witte measure and what was his definition of simultaneity on the clocks? I don't have a clear understanding of the setup.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

“…with relation to the question of this thread I would answer the MMX can't disprove the aether…”

yes, that is so; and is written in a SS post above: formally [at least till now there aren’t convincing physical, first of all experimental, data from which an existence of an ether follows] ether simply isn’t necessary in existent physics; though its existence seems as very rational at possibly correct clarifying of fundamental physical problems.

Correspondingly

“… My simple spinning cylinder though experiment only would work if there is an aether….”

will not add something rational to the situation above; moreover, since the rod is a rigid body this experiment cannot to observe even the absolute the rod’s motion in the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime. As well as the experimental set where

“…de Witte used 2 atomic clocks separated many km and connected over a cable. de Witte connected 2 lasers over optical fibers, so he could reduce the distance of measurements to a couple of meters…”

since constitute [at least by Earth gravity] a rigid system of clocks and [though aren’t mentioned but, of course, necessary] rules, and so cannot observe the absolute motion also.

Returning to the thread’s question [and since rather possibly Earth 3D spatial speed is much more then orbital speed around Sun the fringe shift at the arms rotation could be much more then MM expected, if the interferometer would be oriented correspondingly, of course], the MM experiment was quite correct experiment aimed at detecting the absolute motion, attempts to find in it some conceptual problems can be only if a refuter don’t understand how interferometer works in this case. And the zero result is simply quite natural consequence of that the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed fundamental principle.

Though this principle isn’t omnipotent, as that in the SR/GR is postulated, that is clear because of from corresponding SR/GR postulates that cancel the absolute Matter’s spacetime and postulate total equivalence of all inertial reference frames any number of absurd physical and logical consequences follow.

Thus only one problem remains in this case – to find when the Principle works and when doesn’t, at least completely; and this problem is solved, see SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts, first of all in this case https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628

Cheers

Paul

I have seen articles about de Witte on internet, and there is also an analysis made by Reginald Cahill. Try internet.

If the 2 clocks have high stability you can subtract a constant time difference afterwards. The same for lasers.

John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson,

I did read about the experiment. Thank you and Thierry for that information. During the rotation of the earth the speed of the earth with respect to our solar system changes. We move with the 'absolute' speed of 368±2 km/sec through space. Then we move with 30km/sec around the sun. On top of that we move with the rotating earth. So seen in a system where I have 2 clocks that run accurate and stable their proper time, there should be a phase shift. Only the SRT will define that the clocks deviated from simultaneity. The two clocks are set to be simultaneous in the starting reference frame. After that they are left to run. So they will remain simultaneous in that frame and when the orientation of the earth is different and thus the direction of movement is different, then, according to the SRT they are no more simultaneous. What I like of this experiment is that it is an experiment in a closed box. Without looking outside we see the change.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

You did not see what I said: If the clocks (or lasers have very good stability you can subtract a constant phase difference afterwards). You only have to regard changes in phase.

de Witte's method uses our planet's too slow rotation. You must change direction faster.

John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson,

When you want to measure the one way speed of light change then you have to compare two events. You have to compare the event of light emission and the event of light absorption. Both events have the parameters time and place. So I can define the places E for Emission and A for Absorption. Then I have the time moments T_E and T_A. We want to know how long the light traveled over the distance from E to A. To obtain the difference in time between the moment of emission to the moment of absorption we have to synchronised the definition of time for both events. The problem in the synchronisation is that we don't know anything of the event at A when we are at the location E. Only after light has traveled from A to E we can know what happened at A. This leaves us with quite some freedom to define what event at A is simultaneous with a certain event at E. If we have tow accurate clocks then we can place one clock at E and one clock at A. The stability of these clocks is good enough to assume that they will progress the same. Now let us say that light would take 1 microsecond in average to go from E to A, and 1 microsecond to go back. Then any setting of the two clocks that is within these ±1 microsecond equal could server as simultaneous. According to the SRT the setting depends on the speed of us. We can of cause use the Einstein synchronisation method to set these clocks synchronous or use the ECI frame to set these clocks synchronous. Once we have set these clocks we let them run free. The locations E and A are moving with the rotation of the earth. Because their clocks run free they will remain synchronous to the configuration (speed and orientation) of when they were synchronised. But the speed and orientation of our locations E and A does change. This has to result in a change of measured one time light speed because the clocks define what is simultaneous in the frame of reference of their synchronisation but the events at E and A are moving with respect to that frame. Does this give us a possible way to find and absolute speed? The answer on that is NO. It gives us a method to define a change in speed with respect to the reference we created at the moment of clock synchronisation. But since we don't know what speed we had at the moment of clock synchronisation we still only have a relative speed and no absolute speed. If we would go with 80% of the speed of light with respect to the aether, then our body clocks would run so much different that we still would perceive all measurement results as if we are at rest with respect to the aether. Take any other speed and we would get the same.

I read from the de Witte experiment that he was able to detect the change of speed of the setup. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that he did measure the absolute speed. He did measure correctly the rotation speed of the earth. As predicted by the SRT this should be measured.

We know that the gravity wave detectors need to have an extreme sensitivity. They are set up as a large MMX experiment and they don't detect fringe changes. I hope we can agree that this only means the MMX setup can't detect an aether. Now if we would set up clocks next to the arms of the LIGO ends and measure the phase change of the light or the travel time of short pulses, then there is no doubt that this travel time will vary with the rotation of the earth. We should be able to detect around what axis orientation we are rotating as well as the plane of the ecliptic. But we would not be able to detect at what constant speed we move through space and in what direction. By arbitrary adding a little offset to one of the clocks we could change the moment of zero crossing and thus the direction and because the movement through space changes the speed of the clocks we have no knowledge at what level of average change we are. That time step difference between being at rest in the aether and moving with 368±2km/sec that we get out of the CMBR observations can not be extracted from these observations. We only can extract the difference to the mean speed.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

You only need to see changes, and therefore, you do not need zero phase difference. You need 2 lasers very stable with equal frequency, and you need instead constant phase difference. MMX detects also changes only. You need to change direction faster than the rotation of Earth. Dr C C Su has described this idea.

John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson,

John-Erik>: You only need to see changes, and therefore, you do not need zero phase difference. You need 2 lasers very stable with equal frequency, and you need instead constant phase difference. MMX detects also changes only. You need to change direction faster than the rotation of Earth. Dr C C Su has described this idea.

Can you give a more detailed reference where he proposes an experiment and how he defines his time reference? I did see the pdf:

I didn't read all the text in detail. It would be nice if you could guide me where he proposes an experiment that measures a single direction speed and how he calculates that time. do you refer to the experiment in the chapter 6.5 Spatial isotropy in geostationary path or cavity

What is your understanding of the experiment and what would it give as result?

Did you understand in detail the response I gave you before?

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

Yes, atomic clocks have enough long term stability. However the use of microwaves means that short term stability is not high. So, de Witte needed a many kilometer long distance. By scaling to HeNe lasers you can use a couple of meters and optical fiber instead.

Unfortunately I do not remember where I read the C C Su idea long time ago. I guess you can find something on his name on internet.

Sagnac correction in GPS proves changes in light speed by measuring planetary rotation. It is first order and second order would be only 10^-12 and not detectable by that method.

Regards

John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson,

I learned that there is something that you can call link bombing. Someone points to a reference and let the reader search in that complete document to the place where something might be that supports their view. Then there is an option that in that document there is nothing supporting their view because there was a misconception of what is written in the document. This leaves the reader to prove that that document is empty of supporting texts.

You now ask me to have a search in the internet to find where there might be a text supporting your views where you not even made the effort to answer my question what in detail you hope to show and how you understand the experiments.

I hope that with these remarks you understand that I am not interested to do a deep internet search to find something I don't know what it might be.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

English is a foreign language to me so I do not understand what you mean by 'bombing'.

I regret that I cannot give you more links. It was a long time ago that I heard about it. You have found one article at least, and I only tried to help you a little bit. Anyhow, it is an interesting idea to transfer de Witte's method to light frequency.

With the best regards from

John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson,

I am still unclear what is the end conclusion you want to get out of the de Witte's method. Don't worry about using a foreign language, English, I am also not a native English speaking person. When you give me a hint of a direction where there might be an information then I need at least to understand what I should look for. Here the main question is if the MMX can disprove the aether. I have posted my opinion that it can't disprove the aether. In the de Witte's experiment I see that he manages to see a phase change. That change is related to our actual rotation of the earth. I still don't see how that can prove an aether. I have posted a longer text here to show that I didn't find in that experiment any element that would allow me to prove an aether.

Your responses are only indications that with laser you can reduce the experiment and have better results, but I am not clear what you see as the value of that experiment and for what purpose you intend to use it. What would you want to show if you would do that experiment?

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

Dr C C Su's method can indicate the speed ~10^-6 times c due to planetary rotation in a very obvious way, difficult to explain away.

The method can also detect ether wind in elevated angles, and detect the vertical ether wind of ~3.10^-5 times c, that is produced by our planet, and is the cause of gravity.

I have explained this on my CNPS blog:

and also in articles to CNPS and to GSJournal.

With best regards from

John-Erik Persson

Dear John-Erik Persson,

Your link leads me to a lot of text and I still have problems to find where you go in detail to the setup of C C Su. It would be nice if you could give a more detailed link or advise where to look. Your answers here are so short. I wonder if you are interested in sharing the information.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

Dr Su's idea has not been tested so there is no results to give, as far as i know. I have described this idea many times for many years. I happened to find 1 old paper from 2007. I send a copy.

You seems not interested to give any comments on what I have said. What do you think about them?

Regards from

John-Erik Persson

Dear John-Erik Persson,

I would love to give a detailed response to what you mentioned but to do so I need first to understand what you are talking about. With that PDF I got more information. Yet in there the experiment is described with a picture and text in such a way that I have not enough information to understand what happens.

In that document you mention the aberration of light. You correctly identify that it is a kinematic issue but fail to notice that the observer not only sees the direction of the wave change but also observes that the wave front has rotated.

So, although I thank you for your information, I have to wait to judge, give comment, on it till I have a better understanding of the whole issue.

What is the event that triggers the counters. How are these events related? How is the simultaneity of events defined.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

MMX can`t disprove nothing, as it is measures the speed difined for vacuity(only) in a not empty space.

Paul Gradenwitz

No, the wave front is not rotated in stellar aberration. However, the same unchanged wave front must have a changed representation in the frame of Earth in relation to the frame of the Sun. Hopefully this is more clear in the following article:

Regards from

John-Erik Persson

@John-Erik Pesson

In the your PDF document cited above you state

and

Do you have convincing arguments why this "classical" view of light is the correct way AND the only way how the very nature of "light" should be or must considered? What is your opinion about the "photon"?

Do you have convincing arguments why it should be or must be possible to consider an alleged "ether" as an object for which traditional kinematical notions can be or should be or must be applied?

Best regards

Karl

Dear John-Erik Persson,,

I looked into your pdf. There you have a picture of two versions of a moving MMX setup. The left side you call incorrect and the right side you call correct. I am sorry to say that you seem not to understand how light behaves. What you call incorrect is the correct path of a light 'photon' and what you call correct does not happen. The observer who observes the setup moving will see a rotated wavefront and the observer at rest with the setup observes an unrotated wavefront. Both will see the light join at the final part of the light path. Your gap never happens.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Karl

You ask questions about help from me that already are explained in my paper. What is your own idea?

You ask for motivation for classical physics and if you read my paper you will find that I have explained how Potier's wrong paper in 1882 caused the absurd idea of an effect in transverse arm in MMX. This supported time dilation and twin paradox.

You ask what I think about photons and I have written a section explaining why photons are only illusions.

You ask for arguments regarding ether and I have said that light waves and force of gravity demands an ether.

You have not provided a single argument refuting any of my ideas.

You need to read my paper again.

With best regards

John-Erik

PS You can also take look at the attachment below:

Paul Gradenwitz

You are wrong. In the longitudinal arm you have accepted the wave model stating that the ether is the reference. You must do the same assumption for transverse arm and motion of equipment does not change light behavior. Orientation of equipment defines light c. Potier and others (except Michelson) were wrong when they thought that c+v was controlled, since the ether does not depend on mirrors.

With best regards from:

John-Erik

John-Erik

In one of my comments to the question

https://www.researchgate.net/post/And_if_quantum_gravity_was_taking_the_wrong_way

I sketched the details of my idea of an "ether" considered as a fluctuating medium which consists of el. dipoles and el. tripoles and which is assumed to "fill" space completely. This concept of an "ether" is involved with an ongoing project concerning a new particle model https://www.researchgate.net/project/Hypotron-Theory

Best regards

Karl

Dear John-Erik Persson,

In the MMX experiment you draw one arm where the light goes with the direction of MMX moving through the aether (X) and one arm where the light travels perpendicular to the movement of the aether (Y). In the Y direction you draw two options. The option with slanted lines and the option with orthogonal lines. You state that the last option is correct. You might have a lot of assumptions and might base your opinion on what some people have written, but light will not listen to you. The path the light will take as seen from an observer at rest in the aether is such that the light will reflect at the same location at the end of the Y are irrespectively to the velocity of the setup with respect to the aether. That means in the reference frame of the aether the light path of each 'photon' is a slanted line while the beam of light will appear as parallel to the Y direction sweeping with the setup at same velocity. When encapsulating the setup with a tube such that the speed with respect to the aether would mean that the tube has moved more than the width of the mirror during the time of travel of the light along the Y axis, then in your setup the light would hit the moving tube. But in reality it would stay in the centre of the tube for any velocity of the setup.

Light moving with c through the aether will see the 45° angle of the moving mirror as not 45°. This will project the light path forward the exact amount to keep it moving relative to the moving setup in a 45° angle. A short light pulse will travel the triangle path and will not fall behind.

Any reasoning based on the assumption that light will fall behind is not in accordance with reality.

The longer path of the triangle, however, is traversed with a different wavelength. That means that in that longer path there fit the same waves as the perpendicular path. As a result with all other effects there is no fringe shift.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul Gradenwitz

Not true since the speed caused by planetary rotation is about 10^-6 times c and 10m arms give 10^-5m movement. You cannot see it.

Best regards from

John-Erik

Paul G

With your eye you can see about 10^-4m.

John-Erik