[xersanozgen (OP)]

Fitzgerald had submitted a saver claim (contraction) for aether concept against the negative result of Michelson - Morley experiment.

Romantic scientists had liked this brillant claim; and they said that someone (who finds an experiment for indicating the Fitzgerald contraction) will gain Nobel prize. This phrase had motived many young scientists.

I have an experiment.  I wish, if I would lived before 120 years.

Has someone else?

[David Cooper]

There are already two experiments that resolve the matter. One is Michelson-Morley and the other is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment. The latter demonstrates that the speed of light cannot be the same in opposite directions at every point on a rotating circuit relative to the material of the circuit (whether that's a series of mirrors or a fibre-optic cable), while the former experiment demonstrates that there must be length contraction acting on at least one of the arms of its apparatus whenever the speed of light is not the same relative to it in all directions.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

There are already two experiments that resolve the matter. One is Michelson-Morley and the other is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment. The latter demonstrates that the speed of light cannot be the same in opposite directions at every point on a rotating circuit relative to the material of the circuit (whether that's a series of mirrors or a fibre-optic cable), while the former experiment demonstrates that there must be length contraction acting on at least one of the arms of its apparatus whenever the speed of light is not the same relative to it in all directions.

Thanks for your information.

 I shall examine Mİchelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.


We already know the Michelson - Morley experiment. This experiment did not verify the aether opinion. But Fitzgerald had an obsession about aether and he  submitted a vaticination/prophecy/oracle for reviving aether concept.

When we read the conclusions of scientific articles, we may see that some/many scientists interpret the results in accordance with initial intention. For example in this M-M experiment we divide two parts the light and we suppose that these parts get interfrence. Whereas it is possible that these half lights can be the half of the lights which emited at different moments. In this experiment, the light is used at continious order; therfore we cannot claim that these halfs are belonging with same light.

In my opinion the conclusion of M-M experiment must be that: The light arrive to an observer's eye with always the velocity of light. Aether opinion is not valid. 

[jeffreyH]

If you cannot make observations of the aether then it may as well not exist. Without observations then science cannot be applied. It is much more profitable to determine the mechanics of observable effects. Even if it did exist, studying the aether is a dead end.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If you cannot make observations of the aether then it may as well not exist. Without observations then science cannot be applied. It is much more profitable to determine the mechanics of observable effects. Even if it did exist, studying the aether is a dead end.

In kuantum physics we cannot see some events/objects; however we can perceive and define by some experiments like  in your phrase "to determine the mechanics of observable effects".

[David Cooper]

If you cannot make observations of the aether then it may as well not exist. Without observations then science cannot be applied. It is much more profitable to determine the mechanics of observable effects. Even if it did exist, studying the aether is a dead end.

If you can't make observations of dark matter then it may as well not exist. All we have are calculations that it must be there, just as in the case of aether (or a fabric of space). Reason tells us that some things must exist even when we can't detect them directly. Why the double standards?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

When we see to sky, we can see Alpha Centuri and Andromeda at the same moment. Their photon packets have arrived to our eyes at the same moment. the photons of Andromeda have been emitted before 2 540 000 years and the photons of Alpha Centuri have been emitted 4.3 years. The distances and the dates of starting to travel can be different; but these photons have come to us at the same moment. We call this event "space-time illusion".

Similarly, in interferometer experiments, halfs of different lights (which are emitted at different times) will meet on interfrence board / screen. Somehow, the experimentalists* suppose that these photon packets are the halfs of a same light and unfortunately they interprets the result with this wrong bias.

These experiments had repeated for thousands times; am I just one person who thinks different?

[jeffreyH]

If you cannot make observations of the aether then it may as well not exist. Without observations then science cannot be applied. It is much more profitable to determine the mechanics of observable effects. Even if it did exist, studying the aether is a dead end.

If you can't make observations of dark matter then it may as well not exist. All we have are calculations that it must be there, just as in the case of aether (or a fabric of space). Reason tells us that some things must exist even when we can't detect them directly. Why the double standards?

I am not a fan of dark energy. I might discuss it but that doesn't mean I believe in it.

[David Cooper]

I am not a fan of dark energy. I might discuss it but that doesn't mean I believe in it.

It was dark matter that I referred to, and if all you can do is study its effects without seeing it, you should be ruling it out regardless of how necessary it is to explain the effects that it has. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment detects the aether by proving that light moves faster than c relative to some points on the circuit in one direction and slower than c relative to those same points in the opposite direction, and that is a detection of aether (a fabric of space). If that detection is regarded as invalid because it depends on reasoning, then the same applies to dark matter.

[jeffreyH]

You are misinterpreting what the result means. The speed of light is a yardstick against which all other velocities can be compared. Lorentz realised this. However the local value in a vacuum has to be constant due to time dilation. If you are in a non inertial frame this does not apply.

[David Cooper]

You are misinterpreting what the result means. The speed of light is a yardstick against which all other velocities can be compared. Lorentz realised this. However the local value in a vacuum has to be constant due to time dilation. If you are in a non inertial frame this does not apply.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. The non-inertial frame claim is nothing more than obfuscation because the whole thing can be analysed fully through inertial frames: in one case, for example, using an inertial frame with most of the circuit moving through it while one point is as good as stationary for a moment, sharing the same location in that frame with a point that is absolutely stationary in that frame with a precision so great that you cannot measure the difference between the two. Analysis from any frame of reference produces the same conclusion, that light cannot be moving at c relative to every point on the circuit. Every single point on the circuit can be compared with light on a straight-line path which is again identical at that locality over a short distance with a precision so great that you cannot measure the difference between the two, and the light in the circuit is not allowed to overtake or be overtaken by the light following those straight-line paths when they are momentarily shared (again with a precision so great that you cannot measure the difference between them). Any error that there might be caused by a slight direction change is dwarfed to an astronomical degree by the speed difference in light relative to those points, leaving you absolutely no wriggle room to play games with this without resorting to illogic.

Imagine a circuit set up in a rotating ring. The ring is a mirrored tube with a vacuum inside it which will contain the light and steer it round the course with tiny direction changes which are too small to measure over a short distance. We can rotate the ring at a speed such that its material is moving at a high speed relative to the centre, and we know from Michelson-Gale-Pearson and Sagnac that the light will always "complete" a circuit faster in one direction than the other in so far as it will return to the emitter/detector which rotates with the ring. We can mark four points on the ring at separations of a quarter of the circumference apart and label them A, B, C and D. One of these points, A will be right at the emitter/detector, while C is at the opposite side. We can use any frames of reference, but it should be sufficient to think about this using no more than three: the frame in which the centre of the ring is stationary (frame 0), the frame of reference in which A is momentarily stationary (frame A), and a frame through which the entire ring is moving at a speed such that no part of it ever has a vector of its movement pointing in the opposite direction to the one in which the centre of the ring is moving (frame E, the "E" standing for "extreme").

Let's start with frame 0. If the ring is a lightyear in diameter and is rotating at 0.5c, the light will be moving relative to points A, B, C and D at 0.5c and 1.5c relative to those points in opposite directions through them. At each of these points we can have light move along a tangent to the ring, passing through that same point, and the light following the tangent must keep exact pace with the light in the ring while their paths match each other for a moment. No slight direction change for the light in the ring over a short distance at that point can change its speed to 1c relative to that point from 0.5c or 1.5c. The analysis using frame 0 is absolutely clear: the light cannot be passing points A, B, C and D at c relative to them in either direction, and the same applies to all other points that you could mark on the ring. The timings for light completing trips round the ring in opposite directions agree with this, and although they only provide an average speed at which the light passes all points on the ring (including our four example points), this avarage proves that there are points on the ring where the speed of the light relative to those points cannot be c.

Let's move on to frame A. With this frame, the light is at one point in time moving at c relative to A while A is momentarily stationary, but at that same moment the light passing point C must be moving at 1.8c relative to it in one direction and 0.2c relative to it in the opposite direction. (Point C is moving through frame A at 0.8c - anyone who wants to understand how this figure is calculated should google "relativistic velocity addition".) Again, point C is effectively moving on a straight path for a long time, and the light in the ring passing that point has to keep pace with light moving along that absolutely straight line in the same direction, neither lagging behind it nor overtaking it. Points B and D are more complicated to handle as they are not quite where you might expect them to be due to the greater length contraction acting on the C side of the ring, but any point roughly a quarter of the way round the ring from A and C will do - the only significant complication is that the direction of movement of any of these points is not a tangent to the ring, but a straight line cutting through the ring at those points, these straight lines again representing the paths that the light in the ring actually follows in passing those points. In both cases, B and D, light is moving past them at speeds other than c relative to them in opposite directions. I don't even need to put numbers to them for you to know that this must be true, because these points are moving through the frame of analysis which we're using. For the same reason, I don't even have to discuss frame E other than to say that because all points on the ring are moving through that frame at all times, the speed of the light relative to them cannot be c in any pair of opposite directions on any straight line passing through them.

There simply doesn't exist any inertial frame in which the speed of light can be the same in opposite directions relative to all points on the circuit, but would have to exist an inertial frame in which it could do so to continue to deny the aether's existence because the entire thing maps with great precision to 100% inertial light paths with all the rotation eliminated, meaning that you don't need to play games of obfuscation with any non-inertial frames to reach a valid judgement.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Is to carry the light possible like in aether sea?

YES, we can carry the light like a fish in an aquarium. The light (that is in an analog  television tube) is can carried. If we turn off the television, the light remains to travel in tube as finishing the energy of light. However, If we move the tube, reflecting point of a photon must be marked on LCS (light Coordinat System =  space = outmost frame) for each reflecting moment.

In this experiment an artificial aether is mentioned; but it is not meaning that the aether  is a reality.

Similarly, all mirrored experiments imitates the tv tube  or light clock.

[Bill S]

The light (that is in an analog  television tube) is can carried....

Is that light, or electrons?

[jeffreyH]

The rotating circuit is a non inertial reference frame.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The light (that is in an analog  television tube) is can carried....

Is that light, or electrons?

elektrons radiation and cathode rays.  If you have any objection you may consider a light clock experiment for the example.

[David Cooper]

The rotating circuit is a non inertial reference frame.

The circuit maps to an equivalent circuit which involves zero rotation, every single element of which is inertial. The difference between the two circuits is so infinitesimal that you wouldn't be able to measure it. What this shows is that non-inertial frames are rule-breakers, mixing an infinite number of different frames of reference and pretending that they're a valid frame.

[jeffreyH]

Mapping a rotating circuit to a stationary one how? One rotates, the other doesn't. One has angular momentum, the other doesn't.

[David Cooper]

Mapping a rotating circuit to a stationary one how? One rotates, the other doesn't. One has angular momentum, the other doesn't.

All those straight lines I spoke of before which pass through the same points - when you draw them all in, you can build a circuit of straight lines (along which light moves in straight lines), which matches up to the rotating circuit with such fine precision that you can't measure the difference between the two. On each of these straight lines there is a physical part of the moving circuit moving along it for an extended moment and the light moving through that point must behave exactly the same way as the light moving along the straight line. Now, imagine getting rid of the ring and replace it with little fragments which move along the straight lines instead, coming together at the right moment to reflect the light and make it follow the circuit. None of the material is following the circuit that the light goes round, while the behaviour of the light is constrained tightly by the behaviour of light following the straight paths. Alternatively, you can imagine a large number of photons running a relay race with an imaginary baton, each following a straight line, but passing the baton on to the next such that the only thing following the circuit is the imaginary baton. This is an inertial circuit.

Edit:-

I should spell out the full significance of this mapping of a non-inertial circuit to an inertial one. We can run both circuits in adjacent planes such that any point on one circuit is right next to the equivalent point on the other circuit. The rules about how fast the light is moving through any point in its circuit must be the same as for the adjacent light moving through the equivalent point in the other circuit. The rules of the inertial circuit can thus be imposed on the non-inertial circuit - an analysis of the whole system through an inertial frame of reference is clearly fully valid.

Let's get something else out of the way. Is the imaginary baton idea valid? Absolutely, it is. We could scatter some photons out of the light pulse at given places to see if the light going round one circuit is keeping pace with the light going round the other circuit, and it will become clear that the two lots of light are reaching adjacent points in sync with each other at all times, so even though nothing physically goes round the inertial circuit, there is always an equivalent pulse moving along each part of it keeping exact pace with the single pulse in the non-inertial circuit - the mapping locks the behaviour of the two circuits together with great precision.

If the system is rotating around a point that's stationary in the frame of reference we're using for the analysis, it's clear that the light that travels round the circuit in one direction passes the material of the circuit at a higher speed relative to it clockwise than anticlockwise, and a proven different speed of light in different directions across any object demonstrates that there is an absolute frame. However, it is not that simple, because we also have to account for what happens if the whole circuit is moving through the frame of reference that we're using for the analysis. If it's moving, the circuit isn't so clearly a circuit, and the clockwise and anticlockwise paths for the light follow different paths through space instead of matching each other's route in reverse. But we aren't considering the speed of light relative to those stationary points - we're only interested in its speed relative to the moving points of the circuit which it moves through, and every single one of those points which the light passes through is passed through by both lots of light. Over the course of many cycles, the two lots of light will arrive back at the emitter-detector simultaneously, with one lot having passed through each of those points more times than the other. Both lots of light have travelled the same distance through space during that time, but one lot has passed through the material of every single one of those moving points more times than the other lot of light during the same period. The speed that one lot of light is moving relative to the material of those points is necessarily higher than it is for the other lot of light, and this applies to both the non-inertial circuit and the inertial one. We have here an elegant mathematical proof that there is a difference in the speed of light across the material at these points between the two lots of light.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

My new experiment resulted clearly. I'll share after my reporting.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

           Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion.   The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.