[worlov (OP)]

Hello!

Lorentz's interpretation of the experiment by Michelson and Morley is logical in the sense of geometric optics. But the light consists of the electromagnetic waves. Therefore, it should occur in the vertical light beam a inclination of the field strengths (see the figure below). Then with a radio wave transmitter and a dipole antenna the ether wind could be measured already in the first order. Meanwhile, the Lorentz’s transforms eliminate only the second-order effect.

Best regards

Walter Orlov

[worlov (OP)]

An animation: walter-orlov.wg.am/dipol-ether.gif

For v << c the angle of inclination of the dipole antenna is a = - v/c. How can the Lorentz transformations completely eliminate this inclination? Obviously they can not do that. Therefore if the ether wind really existed, it would become recognizable despite Lorentz transformations.

[xersanozgen]

We may interpret the MM experiment by an alternative sight: the packets of photons (that arrived to interferometer screen at the moment T₃) began to travel  at the moments T₁ and T₂. So, generally it is supposed T₁ = T₂; whereas this cannot be guaranted, because the light is used by uninterrupted form.

The interpretations (that are considered T₁ = T₂) are invalid.

[opportunity]

"natural scattering" of light and the innuendo of an etheric wind appears to be the topic.

Einstein took hold of relativity by first considering Brownian motion.

"lasers" no matter how well directed have scattering. In fact, the LHC uses massive amounts of toroidal magnetic energy to prevent scattering pre-collision.

The question is, "from one reference of space to another, no matter how well directed the photon, why is there scattering"?

Couple in quantum entanglement and the uncertainty principle, scattering would appear to be the norm. Yet can the equations for Brownian motion satisfy the equations for the wave-function of light? It was at the time one hypothesis to the next without any great conclusion to how it all works.

[worlov (OP)]

"natural scattering" of light and the innuendo of an etheric wind appears to be the topic.

No, it is that by the inclined electromagnetic beam the electric field strength is also inclined (figure below). If we assume the existence of the ether wind, then this inclination would be directly proportional to the velocity of the ether wind ( ~ v/c). But in principle the Lorentz transformations can not make this effect invisible to radio commutation on Earth.

[opportunity]

So the Lorenz transformation makes this effect visible? I'm more thinking what is visible is visible, and its our job to know how and why.

Most people today when they read the news about the latest planet discovered, and are given a computer generated image, I'm thinking they actually believe the computer generated image right? Like its an actual photo, right?

I'm thinking if something is visible, and we want to know why, that's science. Making computer animated stories of exo-planets light years away and say that's a "discovery" is as good as cryptocurrency. Sorry, but science should stick to not breaking rules of observation.

Do you have a science reference for the ether wind?

[worlov (OP)]

Do you have a science reference for the ether wind?

That's the sticking point: there is no ether wind, becouse the Lorentz transformations can not in reality hide this phenomen!

[opportunity]

Do you have a science reference for the ether wind?

That's the sticking point: there is no ether wind, becouse the Lorentz transformations can not in reality hide this phenomen!

So the Lorentz transformations don't hide this phenomena, thus they make it apparent, and thus also there is no ether wind, as a sticking point?

Sounds ok so far. I'm just hesitant with algorithms that make things apparent....very fake news.

[xersanozgen]

1 - Etheric wind is not mentioned.

2-  T₁    ≠ T₂  (Absolutely) There is the same concept at the measurement of light's velocity. The number of identified photons (for beginning and finishing of the measuring experiment) are different. Therefore we can always  measure the universal velocity according to outer space not local relative speed. So the measurement is not realized by a single/unique  photon.

3- If we set the light's path by a filter's hole, we cannot use and interpret inclined path.  In this case the path of the light will be like risers of a stair (perpendicular faces). So, total/(integral) length of light's way will be  the same.

[David Cooper]

In your diagram at the top, you've failed to adjust the wavelength of the light to make it reach the top with the same number of cycles. The movement of the emitter will slow its functionality and produce light of lower frequency. The shape of the wave will also be affected by the different amount of time it takes for the cycling to produce the left-to-right and right-to-left components of its movement, so it will no longer be the simple sine wave that you're drawn for it.

[worlov (OP)]

This illustration shows what is happening from the point of view of the observer at rest. Therefore no corrections are necessary. For moving observers, of course, both the time dilation and the length contraction occur. Yes, this will modify the wave ... but the vertical component of the electric field strength will not disappear in this way. That is, the moving observer should be able to notice that the field strengths of his vertical beam are skewed.

[David Cooper]

This illustration shows what is happening from the point of view of the observer at rest. Therefore no corrections are necessary.

If the emitter isn't co-moving with the receiver in the second example, but is in the first, you're not comparing the same system.

For moving observers, of course, both the time dilation and the length contraction occur. Yes, this will modify the wave ... but the vertical component of the electric field strength will not disappear in this way. That is, the moving observer should be able to notice that the field strengths of his vertical beam are skewed.

If you're sending a single photon, its full strength will be received. If you're sending a laser beam of photons, their full strength will be received. If you're sending out a diverging ray of photons (or any kind of force), the headlights effect will concentrate them together more in a forwards direction to cancel out any effect that you imagine you could measure.

[worlov (OP)]

It is actually irrelevant whether the emitter is moving or not. The measurement of the speed of light should provide the same value in each frame. And I consider the case when the emitter rests in absolute ether. Furthermore, the emitter is a horizontal dipole antenna. It produces the electromagnetic waves in a wide angle. But we consider only two narrow beams: one spreads strictly vertically upward from the point of view of the stationary observer P and the second does the same, but for moving observer P'. Because the second beam is tilted, its electric field gets vertical component. Please see figure below.

[David Cooper]

It is actually irrelevant whether the emitter is moving or not.

It is not irrelevant - it is essential. If the emitter is co-moving with the receiver in one case (where neither is moving through the aether at all), then in the other case the emitter must also be co-moving with the receiver when the receiver is moving through the aether. In the latter case, the movement of the emitter reduces the rate of its functionality and produces waves of lower frequency which are perceived by co-moving observers as unchanged even though they are lower.

The measurement of the speed of light should provide the same value in each frame.

And that measurement works because the moving clocks used to time the light from emitter and receiver are both running slow and out of sync.

Furthermore, the emitter is a horizontal dipole antenna. It produces the electromagnetic waves in a wide angle. But we consider only two narrow beams: one spreads strictly vertically upward from the point of view of the stationary observer P and the second does the same, but for moving observer P'. Because the second beam is tilted, its electric field gets vertical component. Please see figure below.

Just as the moving emitter regards itself as stationary and perceives the signal as travelling straight "upwards" even though it's actually being sent out at an angle, the receiver perceives the signal as arriving from directly below, even though it's coming in at an angle. There is nothing detectable to show the reality and distinguish it from the apparent stationariness of the system. The angled wave front that you have arriving at the receiver isn't perceived as angled due to synchronisation issues in the timing of when it's perceived as arriving at any given point. If you want to test any part of that, simply put a laser beam in to follow the same path as any point on your wave front and ask yourself when a pulse of laser light on that path will be perceived as arriving at the receiver. You can't trick relativity - it always cancels out all efforts to detect movement of a system through the aether.

[worlov (OP)]

The angled wave front that you have arriving at the receiver isn't perceived as angled due to synchronisation issues in the timing of when it's perceived as arriving at any given point.

You can not prove that. The time dilation corrects proportionally ~ v² / c², but the inclination is proportional ~ v / c.

If you want to test any part of that, simply put a laser beam in to follow the same path as any point on your wave front and ask yourself when a pulse of laser light on that path will be perceived as arriving at the receiver.

The field strengths have extra no spatial extent - they are in every point in it. Therefore, the consideration like the consideration of the refraction of light can not be applied here.

[David Cooper]

The angled wave front that you have arriving at the receiver isn't perceived as angled due to synchronisation issues in the timing of when it's perceived as arriving at any given point.

You can not prove that. The time dilation corrects proportionally ~ v² / c², but the inclination is proportional ~ v / c.

Take two points on your wave front in the stationary system and get the receiver to time when they arrive - given that they're arriving at different locations, you'll nee more than one receiver to separate out the two timings. Now repeat with the moving system. The timings from the first case will match those from the second case, and this will happen because a leading clock in a moving system is slow, running behind the time of the following clock. This makes any inclination undetectable.

The field strengths have extra no spatial extent - they are in every point in it. Therefore, the consideration like the consideration of the refraction of light can not be applied here.

Field strengths are distributed in the same way as light, being focused more strongly in a forwards direction and weakened behind, always matching for the moving system the strengths that would apply in a stationary system at any point where they're measured. If that wasn't the case, we could measure our speed through the aether simply by measuring how these strengths change.

[worlov (OP)]

Take two points ...

As I said, both electric field strength and magnetic field strength are present in one point. We do not need two points. Simultaneity does not help you. The Loretz transformations work in principle only with the factors of the second order ~ (1 - v²/c²)^1/2. But with the help of the simple geometry we come to the inclination of the light beam

cos(b) = v/c
b = arccos(v/c)

and further

Field strengths are distributed in the same way as light...

Both electric field strength and magnetic field strength are perpendicular to the direction of travel of the electromagnetic wave, hence

a = b - 90°= arccos(v/c) - 90° = - arcsin(v/c)
for v << c applies arcsin(v/c) => v/c
i.e. a = - v/c

That's the first order. You just can not "marry" second and first order.

... we could measure our speed through the aether simply by measuring how these strengths change.

Correct! 

[xersanozgen]

OK

[David Cooper]

As I said, both electric field strength and magnetic field strength are present in one point. We do not need two points. Simultaneity does not help you.

Clearly there's something you don't understand about what's going on, and I'm just trying to help you home in on what that thing is - you think there should be a way to cheat relativity (of the LET variety), but there isn't. You've provided two diagrams with blue lines with arrowheads at each end which are either horizontal or tilted. In the cases where they are tilted, they were produced by something that would swear blind that it was generated in such a way as to make it horizontal, so when it is received, it will likewise be perceived as horizontal even though it is tilted. What happens at the emitter also happens at the receiver - it doesn't only go wrong at one end of the process. The tilt is there, but it is impossible to detect the fact that it's tilted - all measurable effects assert that it is horizontal (regardless of its actual angle).

[worlov (OP)]

In the cases where they are tilted, they were produced by something that would swear blind that it was generated in such a way as to make it horizontal, so when it is received, it will likewise be perceived as horizontal even though it is tilted.

You want immediately to use the principle of relativity. But historically there was still no theory of relativity. So, we have an absolute ether. How do you want to proceed then? Think about it that the vector of velocity and the vector of field strength are physically different. You can not somehow unite them, e.g. by an addition.