[mad aetherist]

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

MMXs in vacuum mode are null for fringeshift. Their null results merely support Lorentz LC & show that gamma is accurate to umpteen decimals. A much more precise MMX was done in 1970 by Demjanov, his twin media (air-carbondisulphide) MMX was 1000  times as sensitive as the old fashioned single media (air) MMXs.

[Bored chemist]

Ok then just leave my posts alone then

No.
When you post stuff that is plainly wrong, I will continue to correct it in order to ensure that this site provides reliable information to those who come here looking for  it.

What I believe though is from an energy standpoint,

The photon energies don't change.
If they did then the frequencies would change. Two beams of different frequencies will not give an interference pattern.
So, because we see fringes, we know there's no energy change. Nobody ever said there would be. It's a bit of nonsense you have chosen to add.

it defies the laws of nature that you would gain or lose energy on any path you shoot the light,

And again.
NOBODY EVER SAID THE ENERGY WOULD CHANGE. STOP GOING ON ABOUT THIS.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

But that fails to take account of the fact that, because you walk  against the current more slowly than you walk with it, you spend more time walking against it than you spend walking with it..
And because of that, the effects don't cancel.

The time you spend walking in the water? YOU call yourself an EXPERT and YOU can't even see what's wrong with this? You're examples have no point. I meant the momentum gained or lost on any outward path, would be cancelled in relation to each other, in other words all paths in the moving current would return at the same time. Not that 

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?

A path in still water vs two in the aether, something I'm trying to discuss on this thread and you offer no help. By the way the way you word this makes it sound like its your proof for the experiment. Meanwhile you say things like

Ok then just leave my posts alone then
No.
When you post stuff that is plainly wrong, I will continue to correct it in order to ensure that this site provides reliable information to those who come here looking for  it.

I told you to leave my posts alone you number salad internet pest!

[Bored chemist]

YOU call yourself an EXPERT

No
I don't.
Whatever gave you that impression?

You're examples have no point.

They show why you are mistaken.

I meant the momentum gained or lost on any outward path, would be cancelled in relation to each other, in other words all paths in the moving current would return at the same time.

OK, there are a number of issues there
Firstly, it may have been what you meant, but it isn't what you said.
You can't expect us to read your mind.
Secondly the only momentum transfers are when the light bounces off the mirrors.
If it transferred momentum in transit then it would run out and it would stop. We know that light from vastly distant stars gets to us- so we  know it doesn't lose momentum over the course of 11 metres.

Thirdly, the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier.
And if there's a moving medium like an ether you would get a shift.
It's like the example I gave of wading through a river (or the one you used of a boat on the river).

If you do the maths correctly (and you have not shown that you understand that maths yet) you find that the times do not cancel.

Which by the way the way you word this makes it sound like its your proof for the experiment.

No, it is just proof that you're wrong.
You accepted that fact already.

Alright I may have been wrong about that

and

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

I told you to leave my posts alone you number salad internet pest!

You talk of "number salad" but you have yet to show that there's anything wrong with the numbers I posted.
I already explained why I won't leave your posts along.

I will continue to point out that they're wrong.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Thirdly, the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier.

Where in your number salad did you explain this?

If you do the maths correctly (and you have not shown that you understand that maths yet) you find that the times do not cancel.

Perhaps since you seem to have all the answers you could point out where I'm wrong in my examples and what the right answer is?

[Bored chemist]

the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier.

Where in your number salad did you explain this?

Here

And you are simply wrong in thinking that the time lost walking one way is exactly compensated walking the other way.

Say the current makes a 1 mile per hour difference and you walk at 5 miles an hour in still water. (OK that's not realistic, but the numbers make the maths easy)
And, lets say your walk is a mile each way.
In the canal you travel a mile in 1/5 hours which is 12 minutes.
So the return journey takes 24 minutes.

In the river you make the same mile each way return journey.
You set off against the current so you are slowed down by a mile per hour. You travel at 4 miles per hour.
The mile takes 1/4 hours or 15 min.

And then there's the second leg.
With the water behind you , you can manage 6 miles per hour so the journey takes 1/6 hours i.e. 10 minutes.

The round trip takes 10 +15 =25 min

I say that 24 is not the same as 25 ...

Perhaps since you seem to have all the answers you could point out where I'm wrong

I already did.
You don't know how to add velocities together.

...and what the right answer is?

It doesn't really matter what the right answer is (you can look up M+M's work if  you really want to know).

What matters is that, since you use the wrong maths and get a zero path difference, using the right maths will get a difference that is not zero.

Yet zero is what they found- so there is no ether.

[mad aetherist]

...........Thirdly, the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier. And if there's a moving medium like an ether you would get a shift. It's like the example I gave of wading through a river (or the one you used of a boat on the river). If you do the maths correctly (and you have not shown that you understand that maths yet) you find that the times do not cancel...........

MMXs do indeed work if-because there is a time difference in the 2 legs, or more correctly if there is a changing time difference.
In an ordinary MMX in air the diff aint much, ie the fringeshift is very small, eg less than 0.1 fringe, mightbe only 0.01 fringe -- sometimes called a 2nd order fringeshift.
I said that an MMX in vacuum gives a null result. More correctly in  theory there is (can be) a very small fringeshift in vacuum -- i suppose it could be called 3rd order. I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal. Plus there is a 4th order fringeshift, etc.

Modern MMXs give a null result to say the 17th decimal or even the 21st decimal -- there are a number of possible reasons why. Firstly an MMX in vacuum must give a null result to say the 10th decimal as i said.

Secondly any MMX can give a null result if it is carried out in a plane that is at 90 deg to the aetherwind. Here the in-plane component of the aetherwind is (can be) zero, hencely changes in the apparent wind can be zero. MMXs are usually horizontal -- & as the background aetherwind blows at 20 deg to Earth's axis then this sort of thing should only arise near latitude 70 deg.

Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs -- they have inherent properties that mimic the effects that they are looking for. The result is anyone's guess-- lots of zeros by the looks. 

Demjanov's twin media MMX done in 1970 was what he called a 1st order MMX, about 1000 times as sensitive as the  oldendays MMXs -- in fact his tabletop MMX had legs less than 12" long -- & his error-noise was not much wider than the thickness of the line on his graph -- bearing in mind that his fringeshifts included 2nd order fringeshifts which he ignored, these sort of made the line in his graph look fat, but the fatness wasnt all noise, most of it was proper (2nd order) signal.
Funny thing, Demjanov's MMX was periodic in a full turn -- whereaz oldendays MMXs were periodic in a halfturn -- i looked into it, its legit.

[Bored chemist]

I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal.

Then it would have been ten million times bigger than the mobern experiments would detect.
But they didn't.
So, you are wrong.

Secondly any MMX can give a null result if it is carried out in a plane that is at 90 deg to the aetherwind. Here the in-plane component of the aetherwind is (can be) zero

How fortunate, then that the earth's axis is tilted WRT the plane of its orbit.
They can't both be coplanar with any ether wind.

Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs

Not in any meaningful sense.

Demjanov's twin media MMX done in 1970 was what he called a 1st order MMX, about 1000 times as sensitive as the  oldendays MMXs --

And about a hundred million million times less sensitive than recent experiments which found no ether

[mad aetherist]

I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal.

Then it would have been ten million times bigger than the modern experiments would detect. But they didn't. So, you are wrong.

Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity, null rezult guaranteed first time every time.

Secondly any MMX can give a null result if it is carried out in a plane that is at 90 deg to the aetherwind. Here the in-plane component of the aetherwind is (can be) zero

How fortunate, then that the earth's axis is tilted WRT the plane of its orbit. They can't both be coplanar with any ether wind.

True, but at any point on Earth there is always a plane that is at 90 deg to the wind, & even Demjanov's 1st order MMX would show zero fringeshift if it were in that plane.

Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs

Not in any meaningful sense.

Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs. And they are sensitive to the aetherwind in other ways.

Demjanov's twin media MMX done in 1970 was what he called a 1st order MMX, about 1000 times as sensitive as the  oldendays MMXs --

And about a hundred million million times less sensitive than recent experiments which found no ether.

Not so. An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero -- in which case Demjanov's MMX was infinitely more sensitive than thems recent MMXs.

[Bored chemist]

Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity,

No.
For two reasons, one is the reason I have been explaining to the OP.
The other is that, if a MMX can "detect" air, it can detect ether.

True, but at any point on Earth there is always a plane that is at 90 deg to the wind, & even Demjanov's 1st order MMX would show zero fringeshift if it were in that plane.

The plane moves WRT the earth, so you would need to mount the MMX on gimbals and deliberately move it to keep it in that plane.
Please stop being silly.

Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs.

So does my left ear, but that doesn't make it an MM experiment

Please stop being silly.

An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero

No it doesn't.

However, it's irrelevant because there have been modern experiments using triangular lasers and also optical fibres which are not vacuum experiments.

Please stop being silly, and do your homework.

[mad aetherist]

Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity,

No. For two reasons, one is the reason I have been explaining to the OP. The other is that, if a MMX can "detect" air, it can detect ether.

An MMX needs to have a dielectric, air is the easiest. The correct calibration of an MMX is explained by Reg Cahill & also by Demjanov (altho slightly differently).

True, but at any point on Earth there is always a plane that is at 90 deg to the wind, & even Demjanov's 1st order MMX would show zero fringeshift if it were in that plane.

The plane moves WRT the earth, so you would need to mount the MMX on gimbals and deliberately move it to keep it in that plane. Please stop being silly.

Yes, but u need to be aware.

Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs.

So does my left ear, but that doesn't make it an MM experiment. Please stop being silly.

Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind (in ways not understood) -- & an MMX is sensitive to the aetherwind (in ways understood).

An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero.

No it doesn't. However, it's irrelevant because there have been modern experiments using triangular lasers and also optical fibres which are not vacuum experiments. Please stop being silly, and do your homework.

Yes an in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero. I am not sure of thems optical fibre MMXs, u might give me a link or name to google. But i know that Cahill used a fibre optic MMX, & he also used a co-axial cable MMX, both worked well & showed a 450 kmps south to north wind about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis.

[Colin2B]

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.

You are prejudging what I believe because of your lack of understanding of the experiment. I do believe ‘space’ or whatever we decide to call it, is a medium; but not a classical medium such air or water, very different properties.
Dissing an experiment due to it’s age is poor logic, there are many experiments far older than that which are still valid, and as @evan points out the experiment is regularly repeated with greater accuracy.
What I think is ‘awful’ is how many people parrot things they have heard without making the effort to understand what they are posting. Overall you would be better to leave the discussion to someone like @mad aetherist who has at least taken the trouble to research the issues in some depth and has a better understanding of the maths. He may be mad, but at least he is thoroughly mad 

I told you to leave my posts alone you number salad internet pest!

You can’t expect him to do that. When you signed up to this forum you agreed that anything you posted would be part of a discussion, these are valid questions.
 Calling it number salad sounds like an attempt to deflect from your lack of understanding of basic school geometry.

[Bored chemist]

An MMX needs to have a dielectric,

That's a matter of definition.
Water is a conductor.

Yes, but u need to be aware.

Why?
Just in case someone accidentally mounted all the MMX that were ever undertaken on carefully steered gimbals, but never mentioned it?
(The original one was floated on a layer of mercury, so we know it was locally horizontal and thus at an angle to the orbital plane.)

Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind

At best, that's "begging the question"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Unless you can actually show that it's reasonable for you to think it's true then it's also a lie.

[mad aetherist]

An MMX needs to have a dielectric,

That's a matter of definition. Water is a conductor.

I dont know what a dielectric is, Cahill said it needs a dielectric, i think a dielectric contains electrons (probly meaning that it slows light).

Yes, but u need to be aware.

Why? Just in case someone accidentally mounted all the MMX that were ever undertaken on carefully steered gimbals, but never mentioned it? (The original one was floated on a layer of mercury, so we know it was locally horizontal and thus at an angle to the orbital plane.)

I reckon that with many experiments-instruments we need to be aware of the direction of the aetherwind at that location at that time, including the easily predicted change in the wind. MMXs are an obvious example. Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert). Michelson's MGX (that big long rectangular pipeline) needed four Igor's one at each corner to periodically re-aim the mirrors. LIGO needs large convex mirrors. Oldendays MMXs needed periodic re-aiming re-calibration during each day. Esclangon mentioned this stuff a long time ago. Allais' stuff probly involved gravity moreso than aetherwind, but praps the problem was aetherwind.

Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind

At best, that's "begging the question" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question -- Unless you can actually show that it's reasonable for you to think it's true then it's also a lie.

A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that. I will find a link.
Here is one re the book The Detection Of Ether -- http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/index.htm

[Bored chemist]

Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert).

You do realise they didn't just buy a cat-toy laser at the local supermarket, don't you?
They found people who are experts in laser stability.

A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that.

And so does my left ear.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

You can’t expect him to do that. When you signed up to this forum you agreed that anything you posted would be part of a discussion, these are valid questions.
 Calling it number salad sounds like an attempt to deflect from your lack of understanding of basic school geometry.

I don't recall learning about how much energy it takes to cross a river and back vs with and against it in any courses or books I've read so I don't know why your calling it elementary.

I do believe ‘space’ or whatever we decide to call it, is a medium; but not a classical medium such air or water, very different properties.

Like what properties its a void, the only property I give it is changes in density within it.

But back to the experiment, If by shooting the light down two equal paths in moving space, and returning it on that exact same path, while the energy loss from the current is constant to all paths, because it does travel across all paths, because on any path if you just sit in the river going one mph, then you will experience the same drift downstream as any other boat on any other path, the boats would move in relation to each other it would seem while they all experience the exact same resistance from the current. 

[mad aetherist]

Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert).

You do realise they didn't just buy a cat-toy laser at the local supermarket, don't you? They found people who are experts in laser stability.

A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that.

And so does my left ear.

The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion. Much of instability must arise from the aetherwind. The experts need to go to the  local supermarket & buy a gimbal. Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind. Even then that only avoids about a half of the problem -- even with a constant orientation to the wind the problem then becomes that the wind changes in size -- u karnt do much about that -- but if u are aware then it must help -- eg the change in wind is predictable -- ie there are times of day when the change is at a minimum -- but as long as u know -- thems Einsteinian experts dont know.

[Bored chemist]

The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion.

No.

Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind.

Stop begging the question.

We have things like LIGO. They are so sensitive they can pick up just the signals they were expected to from gravity waves.
They work.
And if your nonsense about variations in ether wind were anything like true then those signals would be washed out, and LIGO wouldn't work.

Since it does, we know that, at best, the ether wind variations must be tiny; less than about 1 in 10^18.

[Bored chemist]

I don't recall learning about how much energy it takes to cross a river and back vs with and against it in any courses or books I've read so I don't know why your calling it elementary.

You failed to add to velocities together correctly.
That is school stuff.
Your failure was explained to you.

I already did.
You don't know how to add velocities together.

I also explained how to calculate the energy losses

NOBODY EVER SAID THE ENERGY WOULD CHANGE. STOP GOING ON ABOUT THIS.

but you keep on banging on about this figment of your imagination

while the energy loss from the current is

Why do you do that?
Are you unable to read, or unable to understand?

[mad aetherist]

The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion.

No.

Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind.

Stop begging the question. We have things like LIGO. They are so sensitive they can pick up just the signals they were expected to from gravity waves. They work. And if your nonsense about variations in ether wind were anything like true then those signals would be washed out, and LIGO wouldn't work. Since it does, we know that, at best, the ether wind variations must be tiny; less than about 1 in 10^18.

No, LIGO easily clips out most of the noise, they are looking for a chirp tween say 30 Hz to 300 Hz, & this nett signal is about 1/1000th of the noise, so they must clip 99.9% of the total signal.
The change in the aetherwind is a very gradual daily sort of thing -- much less than 1 Hz -- not a problem.
Cahill has identified a turbulence in the aetherwind, which he calls gravitational waves -- the turbulence passing south to north throo Earth at about 500 kmps -- & being the cause of the Shnoll effects. However this aetherwind turbulence happens at more than 1000 Hz, hencely shouldnt be a problem for LIGO. So, the two kinds of change in aetherwind lay well outside LIGOs target signal. 

LIGOs headache is moreso the swing of the aetherwind, the lasers trace out an ellipse, hencely LIGO need large spherical mirrors, & hencely lots & lots of watts -- giving lots of thermal problems -- poor poor LIGO.