Michaeltannoury

Maybe i am getting it wrong . Please correct my logic where i am mistaken: 

The  hypothesis A "of the existence of the ether " is negated by the following contradiction AA : " the Earth's motion is detectable in one reference frame (proof shown in to aberration)  and not detectable in the other (on earth  frame as not detected in MM)" 

However 

The hypothesis  B  "of the absence of the ether"  is not negated by the following contradiction BB: " At low velocities (far from C) object velocities are relative one to the other  (can be added or subtracted according to direction of motion) but at high velocities (close to C)  measurements of velocities is the same in all directions  (velocities become absolute and independent from relative positions or directions of motion ) and is approximately equal to C.

Question 1:

Why in one hypothesis contradictory experiment results ( such as in the relative addition of velocities between light photons and other projectile )  can be accepted while in the other similar contradictions ( in the relative motion of earth to a medium at local reference frame or at distant one ) are not accepted  ? 

Question 2:

The existence of mathematical formula (Lorentz transformation) will definitely explains the contradiction BB because  it's development is already based on the fact that light photon is some kind of a projectile moving with a unique velocity in all reference frames (which is a contradiction to logical additions of velocities). 

This formula  is considered as  a proof of  the validity of B.

What if now someone proposed a mathematical formula that  is based on the contradiction AA.  like some formula that can give different results according to the distance of the frame of reference (local frame or micro relative distances vs distant frame or macro relative distance ) 

such a formula would definitely explains AA.  Would that be a proof for  hypothesis A? 

On 9/15/2017 at 1:33 PM, swansont said:

The MM experiment didn't have to, since Bradley's observation of Stellar aberration ~150 years earlier had already established that we are moving. This is something that aether proponents never seem to take into account. The MM experiment was not designed to answer the question of if we were moving through the aether — there was never a question that we were. It was to confirm Bradley's measurement.

So what one has to do is explain aberration. And that's the problem. A medium can't explain both. We can't be both stationary and moving with respect to an aether.

Maybe i am fighting a  war that is lost long time ago but i would like to loose the battle my self.

I checked about stellar aberration but i still don't get it all. 

from what i understood Bradley only detected the aberration caused by the rotation of the earth orround the sun 

does the movement detected by Bradley include all the other aberrations caused by the movement of the earth in the universe ?

does the aberration seen includes the one caused by earth's rotation around itself? or around the center of the galaxy ?

if all the above  movement combined wouldn't the total aberration of star lights as seen from the earth be complex to be explained only by the rotation of the earth around the sun ?

did people 150 years ago know that the solar system is moving around the center of the milky way ?

excuse me swansont  for my ignorance about many things in this domain , i am just trying to understand more what is happening.

Strange

Thank you for your questions You have a good point here . 

Handy andy

Thank you It is the same method of calculation for the MM experiment as described in  the the WIKI link I posted .

I just checked for a reduced eather velocity of and checked the fringe width.

In conclusion i reached what  Strange quoted  "MM experiment cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. "

I didn't change or modify the MM experiment itself 

I've been reading the past few days  about Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell experiments mentioned by Strange and  i poped up on  a hypothesis called Eather drag  that i seam to explain a  slower ether velocity near earth  . But not yet sure what about this theory. Regarding your other question I have no answer I will get back once i find something .

Strange

"It cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. But other experiments can (such as Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell). And all the tests of Lorentz Invariance. You are fighting a battle that was lost a long time ago"

Thank you for your reply . I will check the Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell  and the tests of lorentz invariance  test to see how they disprove an ether that moves with the earth 

studiot

Thank you for the clarification. Yes i am new . I just read the rules .

yes English is not my first language and not even my second . I apologize  if my hand writing was not clear or i didn't make my post clear enough 

Ok so facebook link is not allowed. How Can i remove it now ?

regarding c i meant the velocity of light measured in a static frame which is the absolute reference frame  

 studiot :

The first thing i said  those are my verification of the formula which means i wrote them.

You said " You have posted 5 photos of handwritten script without any explanation. "  . 

and when i added some Explanation , you  nagged about it saying  " You told me a lot of things I didn't ask for" 

Well you are confusing me !

Strange

So why do you think it is reasonable to ignore the motion of the Earth around the Sun?

First i didn't want to ignore it , but if one don't want to ignore the motion of the earth around the sun , then one should not ignore the motion of the solar constellation around the center of the milky-way galaxy.

And one should not ignore the motion of the milky-way galaxy toward Andromeda.

So one should then expect larger relative motion and stronger ether winds affecting the light trajectory

Since this wind is not detected then either there is no ether at all ,  

or there is an ether that moves with the moving masses (dragged by the masses)  and  the remaining relative speed between the mass and the surrounding ether surrounding it is minor. 

that's why i supposed that the ether near the surface at the earth is rotating at its speed (so the ether is not static near earths surface in relative to  an absolute frame of reference reference) .

 as per the previously used MM apparatus dimensions , they can't detect this small relative motion of the ether  near  the masses if it existed  and had such property

Bottom line is that this experiment cannot confirm its nonexistence. 

swansont: 

the calculation  methodologie is the same as the one performed in MM 

Instead of considering a velocity of ether 30kps (earth around sun )  and getting the fringe dimension 

I supposed a velocity of the earth surface around its center and got a fringe dimension undetectable by all the used MM experiment 

I verified the fringe dimension for the earth surface velocity and it gave me fringe dimensions  that are not detectable even with the largest 28 m MM apparatus diameter size

and in fact if one looks to Wikipedia link MM results were not null but very small values 

This  would suggests a very small movement of the ether near the earth surface  

and would not conclude the abscence of ether 

studiot

This is my verification 

Explanation :

• Velocity of the earth around the sun = 30 km/s
• Velocity of the surface of the earth around its center is 450 meter/second (at the equator)  
• Velocity of the sun and earth around the center of the galaxy is 250 km/s

MM was looking to detect the ether by detecting its relative motion to the earth or the opposite (which is the same)  

at the time He considered the  center of his reference as the  sun and was looking for to detect the 30 km/s (which is the speed of the earth around the sun ) 

MM experiment couldn't detect this velocity.  

now we know that Velocity of the sun and earth around the center of the galaxy is 250 km/s and the galaxy is also moving toward Andromeda 

so if one would want to consider a static ether in which the light moves he would want to look to detect much larger speeds.

I verified the MM all results found in wikipedia all sizes of apparatus  up to 32 m of arm lenth 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

I found that based on the motion of the earth the experiments can never detect the eather  

Even with a higher velocity that now we know earth is moving at (around it center , around the sun , and around the center of the galaxi .. )

A much bigger arms for Michelson–Morley (MM) apparatus is needed 

Please check out my calculation i verified it ten times 

https://www.facebook.com/AL.TANNOURY/posts/10159150148095532