[xersanozgen (OP)]

A new interpretation or conclusion section for Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment

As known, in the interferometer, the halves of light travel in different ways due to mirrors and form fringes on an interference screen. When the test subject is light, these fringes are always formed in the same number. This experimental result wrongs up the ether hypothesis. In fact, this experiment was repeated thousands of times with high precision conditions and the this had been generally accepted.

It is possible to interpret this experiment with the Light coordinate system method * (Figure):



As can be seen in the figure, the light (photon packet) coming from a star-like light source to the observer's eye has always travelled the intermediate distance with the light velocity of c. The speed of observer is not operational. Because the intermediate distance is determined at the  moment of perceiving. this is very important.

The same formation happens in the MM experiment.  Both two light halves arrive to the screen with the speed c. Even if the lengths of their travelling ways are different. Naturally these two light halves are not the belonging the a / same light. There is possibility that these light halves in this experiment begin to travel in Tx and Ty moments, and already it is. Light source is open along the exp.. İf this option had been understood at the beginning, there would be no need to repeat the experiment thousands of times.

 

* This method is simply to examine the motion relationships of experiment actors in a common reference frame (which is LCS or space).

[Bored chemist]

It is possible to interpret this experiment with the Light coordinate system method

Wrong question.
Is it helpful to interpret it that way?

[MichaelMD]

There is a simple point to make an objection to all the sets of experiments based on Michelson and Morley (MMX)'s approach, in which measurements of the behavior of beams of light are used to evaluate the effect of different gravity-settings on whether an ether exists and is interacting with the light.

A basic objection to this theoretic approach, used in all the variations of the MMX, is that if the ether happens to be composed of very-elemental units, much smaller than the photons comprising the measured light beams, there could not be an inertial interface between the photons and the ether. Such an ether ether could not interact with the light. Therefore, MMX is not a disproof of Ether.

A possible further theoretic objection to the basic MMX approach is that if an ether happens to act via a dynamic system that differs from the quantum-mechanics dynamic of photons, that would be an additional reason that the ether and the light would not freely interact, and, again, why MMX cannot be a disproof of ether. (In that connection, I would submit that certain findings in quantum entanglement do suggest strongly that there is an energic dynamic-system underlying quantum mechanics, acting in a way unexplainable, using quantum mechanics alone.) In 1935, Einstein referred to this phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance.")

[Bored chemist]

very-elemental units

You can't be "very elemental" any more than you can be mildly pregnant or slightly dead.

Either you are, or you are not.

[Bored chemist]

Such an ether ether could not interact with the light.

The whole ****ing point of the ether- or, to give it its full name, the "luminiferous ether" (i.e. the ether that carries light) is that it must interact with photons.

[Kryptid]

Such an ether ether could not interact with the light.

As Bored Chemist points out, the ether was invented specifically the be the medium that light travels through. Light not interacting with the ether would be like sound not interacting with air. Light, as it turns out, doesn't need an ether.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If we want to generate an interference of two  lights like on the figure,  we will get the fringes like M-M experiment's .


 

[MichaelMD]

Bored chemist:

Mainly, my post was using the term "elemental," to mean the first, and presumably, the most-minuscule energy units. (I admit having used a redundant word. "very," there.)

But the point I make is theoretically valid. If an ether exists and is composed of energy units, the units would certainly be more rarified than sub-quantal photons, If the ether is composed of units, in that respect similar to quantum systems, the ether's units could well be the first, and smallest, units in a march toward quantum systems. The smallest ether units, being  much smaller than the photons are,then Michelson and Morley (who in their time were not yet even aware of the existence of photons) formulated their assumptions leaving out this possibility. Therefore, Michelson-Morley and its successors are not a disproof of ether. 

[Bored chemist]

Bored chemist:

Mainly, my post was using the term "elemental," to mean the first, and presumably, the most-minuscule energy units. (I admit having used a redundant word. "very," there.)

But the point I make is theoretically valid. If an ether exists and is composed of energy units, the units would certainly be more rarified than sub-quantal photons, If the ether is composed of units, in that respect similar to quantum systems, the ether's units could well be the first, and smallest, units in a march toward quantum systems. The smallest ether units, being  much smaller than the photons are,then Michelson and Morley (who in their time were not yet even aware of the existence of photons) formulated their assumptions leaving out this possibility. Therefore, Michelson-Morley and its successors are not a disproof of ether. 

You missed the important bit (which two of us pointed out)

he ether was invented specifically the be the medium that light travels through. Light not interacting with the ether would be like sound not interacting with air.

The whole ****ing point of the ether- or, to give it its full name, the "luminiferous ether" (i.e. the ether that carries light) is that it must interact with photons.

What you have said is that the MM experiment wouldn't detect the ether if the ether wasn't the ether.

Can you address that, or are you going to accept that you are talking nonsense?

[MichaelMD]

My point is simple. But it is not nonsensical. If an ether exists which happens to be mainly composed of vanishingly-tiny energy units, while the light beams that were measured in Michelson-Morley are composed of photon units which are much, much, larger, there cannot be an inertial interface between the light beams and the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot interact with the light beams. Michelson-Morley cannot disprove the existence of such an ether. Therefore, Michelson-Morley, and all its successors, based on the same kind of approach, do not disprove ether.

[Bored chemist]

My point is simple. But it is not nonsensical. If an ether exists which happens to be mainly composed of vanishingly-tiny energy units, while the light beams that were measured in Michelson-Morley are composed of photon units which are much, much, larger, there cannot be an inertial interface between the light beams and the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot interact with the light beams. Michelson-Morley cannot disprove the existence of such an ether. Therefore, Michelson-Morley, and all its successors, based on the same kind of approach, do not disprove ether.

And again...

What you have said is that the MM experiment wouldn't detect the ether if the ether wasn't the ether.