by crawler » Wed Dec 31, 2025 2:23 am
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Tue Dec 30, 2025 4:00 pm
@Crawler I havent really looked into other MM type experiments except the official ones done by Michelson and Morley. I dont know how reliable or accurate the other ones are, but I can tell MM has done a huge error by not doing the exp in a vacuum. Basically they did it in earth's atmosphere, so light had a preferred medium which was air, not aether. And that air was comoving with the earth, or was stationary relative to earth. So their almost null result was kind of obvious, since in the basement where they made the exp there was no relative motion between air and the earth.
But the full null result in vacuum can also be explained by fully dragged aether, which means that aether is moved by the earth. In that case no aether wind would be measurable since there is no relative motion between earth and aether either. So the idea that only length contraction can explain it is not correct, since full aether drag also explains it.
And even a stationary aether explains it, because the speed of light does not change because the earth source is moving relative to aether. You just cant add the speed of the earth to the speed of light, as MM did. Light propagates at a constant speed in all directions in the aether no matter how fast the earth/source is moving through it, and no matter what direction its moving in. That is another basic error they made in their calculations. If you use c instead of c+v and c-v, the result is t=2L/c on the horizontal arm, and also t=2L/c on the perpendicular arm (the latter Michelson-Morley calculated correctly the first time, but Lorentz wrongly corrected them and used Pythagoras instead to calculate a diagonal path which light never takes in MM exp because its speed does not add vectorially with the earths speed)
For good info on MMXs i would read the articles by Prof Reg Cahill (at least 20 articles).
And by VV Demjanov (at least 6 articles).
And articles by many other experimenters & researchers etc old & new.
MMXs in vacuum give nearnuff zero fringe shifts, which supports relativistic length contraction of solids (or at least some kind of shape change).
Aether drag duznt exist, as shown by the non-null fringe shifts in MMXs using air or helium or partial vacuum etc.
The background aetherwind blows throo the solar system south to north at 500 km/s about 15 deg off Earth's axis, RA 4:30.
Then we must add or subtract the effect of the Earth's rotation, & the Earth's orbit.
And we must add or subtract the aetherwind accelerating into the Earth & the Moon & the Sun (where the aether is annihilated).
Interestingly this means that the horizontal component of the aetherwind is zero at some latitudes at some times of day at some times of the year (ie all MMXs would show zero fringe shift)(not important).
Demjanov found in 1968 in Obninsk a horizontal component of aetherwind varying from 140 km/s to 480 km/s per day in June, using his twin media MMX.
Nearly forgot, photons slow near mass, hence c in aether in vacuum slows to c' in aether in vacuum near mass, & slows further to c" in the aether in air or water etc (which is anyhow just another stronger version of c' actually)(ie in mass is like near mass, but stronger).
Allso, flowing air/water/glass etc do not drag aether, they drag photons not aether. Fizeau & Fresnel & Co are wrong here.
[quote=mariuslvasile post_id=12559 time=1767110418 user_id=1000000342]
@Crawler I havent really looked into other MM type experiments except the official ones done by Michelson and Morley. I dont know how reliable or accurate the other ones are, but I can tell MM has done a huge error by not doing the exp in a vacuum. Basically they did it in earth's atmosphere, so light had a preferred medium which was air, not aether. And that air was comoving with the earth, or was stationary relative to earth. So their almost null result was kind of obvious, since in the basement where they made the exp there was no relative motion between air and the earth.
But the full null result in vacuum can also be explained by fully dragged aether, which means that aether is moved by the earth. In that case no aether wind would be measurable since there is no relative motion between earth and aether either. So the idea that only length contraction can explain it is not correct, since full aether drag also explains it.
And even a stationary aether explains it, because the speed of light does not change because the earth source is moving relative to aether. You just cant add the speed of the earth to the speed of light, as MM did. Light propagates at a constant speed in all directions in the aether no matter how fast the earth/source is moving through it, and no matter what direction its moving in. That is another basic error they made in their calculations. If you use c instead of c+v and c-v, the result is t=2L/c on the horizontal arm, and also t=2L/c on the perpendicular arm (the latter Michelson-Morley calculated correctly the first time, but Lorentz wrongly corrected them and used Pythagoras instead to calculate a diagonal path which light never takes in MM exp because its speed does not add vectorially with the earths speed)
[/quote]
For good info on MMXs i would read the articles by Prof Reg Cahill (at least 20 articles).
And by VV Demjanov (at least 6 articles).
And articles by many other experimenters & researchers etc old & new.
MMXs in vacuum give nearnuff zero fringe shifts, which supports relativistic length contraction of solids (or at least some kind of shape change).
Aether drag duznt exist, as shown by the non-null fringe shifts in MMXs using air or helium or partial vacuum etc.
The background aetherwind blows throo the solar system south to north at 500 km/s about 15 deg off Earth's axis, RA 4:30.
Then we must add or subtract the effect of the Earth's rotation, & the Earth's orbit.
And we must add or subtract the aetherwind accelerating into the Earth & the Moon & the Sun (where the aether is annihilated).
Interestingly this means that the horizontal component of the aetherwind is zero at some latitudes at some times of day at some times of the year (ie all MMXs would show zero fringe shift)(not important).
Demjanov found in 1968 in Obninsk a horizontal component of aetherwind varying from 140 km/s to 480 km/s per day in June, using his twin media MMX.
Nearly forgot, photons slow near mass, hence c in aether in vacuum slows to c' in aether in vacuum near mass, & slows further to c" in the aether in air or water etc (which is anyhow just another stronger version of c' actually)(ie in mass is like near mass, but stronger).
Allso, flowing air/water/glass etc do not drag aether, they drag photons not aether. Fizeau & Fresnel & Co are wrong here.