Professional Strawman

Michelson be rolling in his grave right now. That's a question for a Miss Universe pageant. All of us know the answer to that silly question (except some Physicists of course). Why do you ask such questions here? Ask them in Trash. Or Speculation, silly!

You're in the wrong forum, though. This forum is slow. Probably explains why it's also fake. You won't learn anything here. My two cents.

Yep, they all can't figure out how an Interferometer works.

I've seen better fake forums.

You asked a crank question. An Oscar winning crank question. Your question is equivalent to asking why does a solar panel need sun? Or why does a swimming pool need water? See the error in that thinking? If the cranks over at LEGO have their way, they'd replace, LASERS with a couple of Kenyan runners. One runs north, one runs east. When they return one of them will let you know if a gravity wave hit him. Heh! In my opinion, you and your colleagues ought to have a week's pay deducted from your salaries for engaging in such crankery. Honestly, your crank question belongs in trash, if not in speculation. Kind regards, Prof. Strawman

LOL. Them, interferometers! Who knew physicists didn't understand, them. Now I know!

I am not holding my breath. Still, interferometers have been around for a very very long time. And if there are physicists clueless about the workings of this device, it's honestly, laughable. If LEGO were about the size of my car, I wouldn't find that funny.

That's another colloquium, altogether I guess.

.Can someone list out relativistic aberration angles at various mirrors in the MME? For eg, at the top mirror, Michelson wrote he observed, an angle, "2q". Given that the splitter is no longer at 45 degrees, what is the Relativity equivalent of this angle at the top mirror? In the link below, page 3, formula (9). Can anyone confirm if this is a correct reflection formula? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0998.pdf

And I started to think, you were one of those physicists who didn't have a clue.

Yea, them interferometers!

Hi all, I put a link to the Animation in my signature. So Michelson did not observe any aberration, in his apparatus, yes?

Question: The aberration angles that Michelson referred to, in the quote above, were they "fictitious" or were they "second order observations"?

Read post # 4.

English is my third language. I can't seem to figure out what Michelson means there. No.

Anyone? Anyone disagrees that these angles were not observed by, Michelson?

Yes, that's correct. It was a conclusion.

I was hoping someone would comment on this: ""It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"" The animation I made shows that the transverse ray does not meet at the same point on the splitter when it returns due to aberration. This is not in accordance with relativity. I thought someone would notice that. Also the telescope tilt, tan(q)=v/c gives a velocity potential. "If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails." - Michelson, 1887 paper. Prof. Strawman PS. 1. Velocity potential = The ability to discern one's own velocity. PS. 2. I wasn't trying to advertise my video. I am looking for feedback.

Economists and Relativists have one thing in common: jargon.

Aether was assumed to be a medium that freely penetrates through matter; and that it was stationary (sort of like Newton's master frame). Aether is only a theoretical artifact. You can't detect it even if it did exist, given its properties (that it "freely" penetrates through matter). What you can detect is: your relative motion to it. Michelson Morley used the phenomenon of aberration to detect our Sun's velocity relative to it. They did not record an interference fringe shift they were expecting. But it wasn't null. They measured aberration in the apparatus. Michelson called, it a second order effect. I made an animation and started a thread about it. See if that helps you. Prof Strawman. PS. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1M-L9jKo3w Mike, aether was assumed to freely penetrate through matter and it was thought to be stationary. (Evidence: Aberration of light). One could not detect a medium, even if one wanted to. It freely penetrates through matter. Michelson was not trying to detect a "medium". He was trying to detect the velocity of our Sun relative to a medium that was thought to be stationary (with properties equivalent to vacuum). Aether is only a theoretical construct. Just like spacetime is. The idea of a ripple in aether is about real or unreal as a ripple in a spacetime. Spacetime and aether are not "material" in origin. Einstein's spacetime is math. In my opinion, LIGO is probably detecting this second order aberration effect that Michelson mentioned here: "It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;" Prof Strawman

Hi. I just made an animation of Aberration (aka tilting of the telescope) in the Michelson Morley experiment. The aim of the animation is to illustrate these quotes: -- Michelson, 1887 paper. Any comments?