[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Well, all the people who looked at this experiment think that 24 is not 25.

Why do you think they are all wrong and  24=25?

In thinking about your example I came to the conclusion that we're both wrong. For starters  a wave isn't a boat or a person walking in a river current. A wave is not the movement of matter. It's speed is independent of the speed of the medium that it is travelling through. It's frequency is changed by the movement of the medium, but not the speed at which it propagates. For example when a car drives past with loud music, as it drives away from you the music doesn't seem to slow down but rather becomes lower in tone because its frequency has stretched out. Same thing with red shift and blue shift of the stars as we move toward or away from them. The faster you move towards the wave, the higher the frequency appears to be because you are moving into it. So the moving aether wouldn't change the speed of the wave, just it's frequency. The Michelson Morley experiment assumes that speed will be added to the wave travelling with the moving aether as if it was a boat travelling with a river current and then slower on its way back. Instead though when light waves travel with the aether the wavelength becomes wider because the expansion of the wave travels with the moving medium and it slows down its frequency, not the wave in its entirety. Hence the speed of the light travelling along both paths in the experiment comes back at the same time causing no infraction.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Well, all the people who looked at this experiment think that 24 is not 25.

Why do you think they are all wrong and  24=25?

Alright I may have been wrong about that one but wrap your head around this. According to the M&M experiment, the light travelling to and fro on a path perpendicular to the aether movement should return faster then the light moving with and against the current right? So lets say you have a boat that travels 5 mph and the current of the river you are on is 1 mph. The boat will move 4 mph upstream and 6 mph downstream because of the loss and gain of momentum from the current. So lets say it travels one mile and back. Upstream it will take the boat 15 minutes and going down stream it will take 10 minutes to travel a mile. So a total trip of 25 minutes. Now if the boat travels perpendicular to the one mph current for one mile at 5 mph, it will drift down stream 1/5 of a mile. So in order for it to travel a straight line perpendicular to the current it has to travel 1/5 of a mph upstream to fight the current. so 5 mph minus 1/5 or .2 mph is 4.8 mph. So it travels .2 mph upstream to compensate for the current and 4.8 mph in the perpendicular direction. Traveling one mile at 4.8 mph will take 12.5 minutes. The path back along the perpendicular will take the same amount of time and 12.5 + 12.5 = 25 minutes. Hence 25 minutes for the boat to travel a one mile path and back in the perpendicular to the current, and with and against it. The math will be the same for any river current speed or boat speed as long as the speed of the boat exceeds the river current

[Bored chemist]

Alright I may have been wrong about that one

Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?

[Bored chemist]

It's speed is independent of the speed of the medium that it is travelling through.

FFS!
For the third time

If you arrange for the path to be through a flowing gas then you do get fringe shift.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Alright I may have been wrong about that one

Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?

How is the boat example wrong?

[Bored chemist]

Alright I may have been wrong about that one

Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?

How is the boat example wrong?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorAddition.html

[alancalverd]

This is such a common problem that I am almost ashamed to have to explain it to a group of science enthusiasts.What on earth has happened to basic mathematical education? Here's what happens to me on an ordinary work day.

I fly from A to B, do something useful, then fly then back again. Suppose the distance is 200 miles and I fly at 200 mph through still air.

Time outward = 1 hour, time return = 1 hour. obviously. So total trip time =2 hours.

Now suppose there is a 50 mph wind blowing from B to A. Speed over the ground outward = 150 mph so time outward = 200/150 hr = 1 hour 20 minutes

Return trip covers the ground at 250 mph so return time = 200 / 250 hr  =  48 minutes

So the total trip time = 2 hr 8 minutes

Any reflection of a compression wave through the aether will be subject to similar delays if the aether is moving relative to the source.

If a light wave "gained momentum" from the aether, it would increase in frequency (E=hν by experiment). Funny thing is, no matter where you place your diffraction grating with respect to the source and the "aether wind", the measured wavelength of a laser or even a sodium lamp doesn't change, so the "one-way momentum" is constant.

But who cares about elementary arithmetic, or the physics you did at school? If Donald Trump believes in the aether, that's good enough for Republicans, flat earthers and aetherists.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Alright I may have been wrong about that one

Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?

How is the boat example wrong?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorAddition.html

I looked this over. Anyways back to my example of the boat having to direct itself at least partially upstream to travel a straight perpendicular path. The boat travels .2 mph upstream and 4.8 mph sideways, so an angled 5 mph in total. right? but wait. If the boat is travelling 4.8 mph it will drift into a diagonal path because .2 mph upstream is to compensate for 5 mph. So if you use 5.2 mph in the math as the speed of the boat you get the perpendicular path at 24 minutes, and the horizontal path at 23.96 minutes. So the math gets screwed up. Can anyone help me see from a physics world if .2 mph upstream is sufficient for the 4.8 mph perpendicular path? Also light wouldn't push upstream because it has no engine it would just carry off in a diagonal path, wouldn't that effect it's speed not having to fight the current of the aether?

[Colin2B]

The boat travels .2 mph upstream and 4.8 mph sideways, so an angled 5 mph in total. right?

Wrong.
To be honest, if you don’t understand why this is wrong you ought not to be posting new theories on a science forum.
Go back to secondary school maths (to be honest they cover it over here at primary level).

[Bored chemist]

I looked this over.

Look it over again, and keep doing so until you realise that you can't justy add velocities together.
Or think about this example.
I'm in a city where the streets are set out as a square grid pattern and each block is 100 metres on each side.
I walk at 100 metres per minute.I set out and go North 5 blocks (that's 5 min)  and then East 5 blocks (another 5 min).
Since I walked for 10 min , according to your arithmetic, I should be 1 km from where I started .
But obviously,, I'm not.

So, even if you don't know how to calculate the right speed, you should recognise that just adding the speeds together gives you the wrong answer.


When you use that (definitely wrong) answer, you come to the conclusion that physics has been wrong since M+M's time.
Because, with that (definitely wrong) calculation, the path differences cancel out.


But, if you know that they cancel when you do the wrong maths, you also know that they do not cancel if you do the right maths (because exactly cancelling is the wrong answer).

So, while you, personally, don't know enough  to calculate how much the fringes shift, you must realise that they do shift if you move relative to the "ether".

And, since they would shift if there was an ether, but they don't, you know there's no ether.

If you want to learn some actual science, so you can find out what the right calculation of the sum of the velocities of the river and the boat would give you, perhaps you should start here
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/vectors-precalc

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Well, all the people who looked at this experiment think that 24 is not 25.

Why do you think they are all wrong and  24=25?

This is your proof that the experiment works as they said it should? You are ridiculous. I would ask you to prove it works but know you don't have any intelligent answer, just number salad. I'm guessing wave-particle duality is also proven concrete in your head as well since it fits with your opinion that space isn't a medium is that right?

And yes, my physics with the boat going at a diagonal may be wrong, and I may know where they're wrong, but you have failed to show that you understand that. Strictly from an energy standpoint, it defies the laws of nature that you would gain or lose energy on any path you shoot the light, as long as it makes an equal trip back on that path, all paths are equal in length, the motion of the space-medium is consistent as well as the space it's in i.e. a gravity field or any other kind of field, and basically is set up the M&M experiment.

To be honest, if you don’t understand why this is wrong you ought not to be posting new theories on a science forum.
Go back to secondary school maths (to be honest they cover it over here at primary level).

So you as well believe space is not a medium? It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.

[Kryptid]

It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.

Here's a much more precise one that was done in 2009: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

And if you think about its natural diagonal path it takes along the perpendicular to the space-medium, it looks very similar to diffraction which doesn't just make that path longer, but would also slow the light down. But energy can't be gained or lost, how can any equal path from the source and back yield an energy plus or minus? if it can we should be able to build a free energy machine out of it.

[Bored chemist]

This is your proof that the experiment works as they said it should?

No.
It's my proof that you are wrong.

you don't have any intelligent answer, just number salad.

I showed where all the numbers I used came from.

And yes, my physics with the boat going at a diagonal may be wrong,

Told you so

Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?

I'm guessing wave-particle duality is also proven concrete in your head as well since it fits with your opinion that space isn't a medium is that right?

Particle wave duality  is proven in my view, because I have personally done experiments that work with bothe the particle and wave aspects of light.
That's why I actually know what I'm talking about.

but you have failed to show that you understand that.

I pointed out exactly where you were wrong and gave you instructions on where you might learn better.
It isn't my fault you didn't do so, but came back with a silly rant.

Strictly from an energy standpoint, it defies the laws of nature that you would gain or lose energy on any path you shoot the light, as long as it makes an equal trip back on that path,

Nobody ever said there was an energy loss, so that's a straw man attack.

It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.

How did you come to the conclusion that, in spite of being repeatedly shown to be wrong, you think you know better than the intelligent people?

it looks very similar to diffraction

It's not a matter of "what it looks like", it's a matter of how it is.

how can any equal path from the source and back yield an energy plus or minus?

Nobody ever said it did.
The problem seems to be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[guest39538]

What do you think space actually is?

What  do  you  think  space  actually  is  ? 

You'll  probably  avoid  answering......

[mad aetherist]

The michelson morely experiment is old, out dated, and questionable if it would work as they said in the first place.

I've got some good news for you! The US National Science Foundation spent about $600 Million upgrading the Michelson Morely experiment, bringing it up to date with the latest, most stable lasers and latest high-tech mirrors, and even paid for an enormous vacuum tube so it wouldn't be disturbed by changes in air pressure, etc.
Comment: A proper MMX needs gas -- vacuum gives zero fringeshift.

It now has the extraordinary ability to detect motion relative to the aether of better than 1 part in 10²⁰, which is certainly enough to detect the rotation of the Earth, the Earth's movement around the Sun, and the Sun's movement around the galaxy.
Comment:  It has zero ability to detect aetherwind in the conventional MMX fringeshift sense. However it appears that it has the ability to confirm Lorentz's gamma for length contraction to 20 decimals.
Secondly if  they did detect an aetherwind they would not need to account for it. They only need to ignore it -- easily done -- after all their detection is obtained by removing noise of all sorts that is 1000 times as strong as the signal they are looking for -- a signal to noise ratio of 1000. So removing or ignoring a smooth gradual 24hr change would be like taking candy from a baby. As it is they are trying to make us babies eat baloney.

But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction.  They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".
Comment: No u are wrong. The daily etc change in aetherwind shows up during every second of every day by changing the direction of their laser beams. Thats why they need big convex mirrors -- flat mirrors wouldnt work. Flat mirrors would need 1/1000th of the wattage, but they have to have convex mirrors & super wattage thusly giving them a giant thermal headache.
If the aetherwind is say c/1000 & it it swings back & forth during each 24hrs then a 4" flat mirror wouldnt work. However because the swing is predictable then they could easily allow for it & use 4" flat mirrors & 1watt lasers, but that would require a knowledge of the background aetherwind blowing throo Earth, & more importantly it would require an admission of aetherwind, which in turn proves aether, which in  turn proves SR wrong, which in turn proves GR wrong, which in turn proves that GWs do not exist, which in turn proves that LIGO is a waste of time & money. So we have large convex mirrors -- & we have a waste of time & money anyhow.

And in the absence of a disturbed aether, LIGO does detect the subtle influence of gravitational waves (as also predicted by Einstein). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Comment:  No such GWs exist. And if they did exist they would not travel at c, they would travel at at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern). Thats how we know that their GW detections are fake. Their delay of 0.0069 sec tween Hanford & Livingston would need to be 1/20 billionth of that or less to convince me of GWs.
Their detection is i reckon due to harmonics from their calibration signals. Or if the delay of 0.0069 sec is legitimate then there is the possibility of a photonic event passing throo at c, or an em event passing throo at c.
A Russian team detected an event of some sort during the 1 sec of the first LIGO GW detection. I forget the details.

[Kryptid]

Their detection is i reckon due to harmonics from their calibration signals. Or if the delay of 0.0069 sec is legitimate then there is the possibility of a photonic event passing throo at c, or an em event passing throo at c.

As a gravitational wave passes through a given region of space, it compresses space at a 90 degree angle to the direction of travel along one axis and stretches space along an axis perpendicular to both the direction of travel and the direction of compression. As it progresses, the axis of compression switches to expansion and the axis of expansion to compression. This goes back and forth over and over until the gravitational wave passes.

Here's an image to help illustrate it: https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/visual/visual.html?shortname=gravitational_waves

This series of compressions and stretches is exactly what gravitational wave detectors like LIGO look for and is why they have two "legs" that the lasers pass through at 90 degree angles to each other. If a gravitational wave causes a measurable compression along one leg, it should produce a simultaneous expansion along the other. Electromagnetic waves do not cause distortion of this sort, so the signature of any kind of electromagnetic interference on LIGO would not look the same as a gravitational wave detection.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

how can any equal path from the source and back yield an energy plus or minus?
Nobody ever said it did.
The problem seems to be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok then just leave my posts alone then


I have heard that there is a fringe shift, just not one that fits with there results.

"By rotating the spectrometer 90 degrees, one can compare the effect of speed through the putative æther on one of the beams. Then by making measurements six months apart, one can add or subtract the speed of the Earth through æther. The speed of the Earth in its orbit around the sun is v = 30 km/s. Substituting in the equations above (and using l = 11 m - for an optical spectrometer, it was a seriously large!) the phase difference expected would be

Δφ = 2πΔt(c/λ) = 2.3 radians = 0.4 fringes.

The spectrometer was easily sensitive enough to see this*. However, the result was: 0.00 plus or minus 0.01 fringes."

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_M&M.htm

However at the time they were looking for the speed of the earth around the sun, not even realizing that the earth traveling with the galaxy through the universe would be the fastest movement through the aether, way faster then its motion around the sun. What I believe though is from an energy standpoint, it defies the laws of nature that you would gain or lose energy on any path you shoot the light, as long as it makes an equal trip back on that path, all paths are equal in length, the motion of the space-medium is consistent as well as the space it's in i.e. a gravity field or any other kind of field, and basically is set up the M&M experiment.

[mad aetherist]

Their detection is i reckon due to harmonics from their calibration signals. Or if the delay of 0.0069 sec is legitimate then there is the possibility of a photonic event passing throo at c, or an em event passing throo at c.

As a gravitational wave passes through a given region of space, it compresses space at a 90 degree angle to the direction of travel along one axis and stretches space along an axis perpendicular to both the direction of travel and the direction of compression. As it progresses, the axis of compression switches to expansion and the axis of expansion to compression. This goes back and forth over and over until the gravitational wave passes.

Here's an image to help illustrate it: https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/visual/visual.html?shortname=gravitational_waves

This series of compressions and stretches is exactly what gravitational wave detectors like LIGO look for and is why they have two "legs" that the lasers pass through at 90 degree angles to each other. If a gravitational wave causes a measurable compression along one leg, it should produce a simultaneous expansion along the other. Electromagnetic waves do not cause distortion of this sort, so the signature of any kind of electromagnetic interference on LIGO would not look the same as a gravitational wave detection.

Yes, if GWs of that kind exist then LIGO should detect. I might prefer to call them something other than waves, waves suggests a natural frequency as for light, but the GWs are i think more of pulses, pulses that follow exactly the quadrupole orbital motion-dance of the 2 merging stars, giving a chirp. Not that i believe in these sorts of GWs (ie quadrupole induced GWs-pulses), nor do i believe the speed of c. A chirp of 1000 Hz could be well measured by legs of up to 300 km long (anything over 300 km would be counterproductive), LIGO has legs i think 4 km long so is ok.

Yes its difficult to see how a passing photonic or em event might induce a fringeshift at LIGO. A leg 4 km long can possibly well detect frequencies of say  75,000 Hz or less (ie 300,000/4), or better still a half of that (say 40,000 Hz), ie something with a wavelength say twice as long as a LIGO leg (legs are 4 km). The event would have to shorten one leg & either not affect the other leg or better still stretch the other leg during that same instant. But photonic or em events cannot affect the length of a leg, unless of unearthly strength perhaps (cant happen)(we wouldnt be here). Sonic events have too short a wavelength. So that leaves us with some sort of seismic event.

On the other hand the guilty event only has to affect the disposition of the little detector, it doesnt have to affect the whole 4 km of pipeline. So it could be sonic. But photonic & em are probly not guilty.

[Kryptid]

So that leaves us with some sort of seismic event.

On the other hand the guilty event only has to affect the disposition of the little detector, it doesnt have to affect the whole 4 km of pipeline. So it could be sonic. But photonic & em are probly not guilty.

Neither a seismic event nor sound waves can be blamed.

(1) Sound waves and seismic waves don't have the peculiar expansion/contraction characteristics of gravitational waves so they would not produce the same kind of signature. Seismic waves and sound waves cause an expansion and contraction parallel to the direction of movement, whereas gravitational waves cause an expansion and contraction perpendicular to the direction of movement.

(2) The event GW170814 was detected by both of the LIGO detectors (one in Washington state and one in Louisiana) and the Virgo interferometer in Italy all in a span of 14 milliseconds. An earthquake or sound wave would not be able to trigger detectors separated by thousands of miles in such a time span: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101

(3) The event GW170817 was accompanied by the gamma ray burst GRB 170817 (which was detected 1.7 seconds later by multiple observatories). The gravitational wave signal lasted for about 100 seconds, becoming stronger as the two neutron stars neared each other and finally stopped after they collided. If sound waves or seismic waves were to blame, there would be no connection to cosmological events like this nor would the signal look like what was expected of two in-spiraling neutron stars coming closer and closer to each other as they orbited over a period of 100 seconds: https://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/paper/GW170817-PRLpublished.pdf

(4) Virgo has environmental sensors capable of detecting seismic or sonic interference. The scientists who run it would therefore know if a gravitational wave detection were accompanied by such a compromising event or not: https://www-sop.inria.fr/apics/sbpi/derosa.pdf

I apologize for derailing your thread, trevorjohnson42. This will be my last post here about gravitational waves.