[Kryptid]

In a bizarre development modern Michelson interferometer experiments use resonant vacuum cavities rather than interference effects, but for which the analysis here is easily adapted, and with the same consequences.

Based on what reasoning?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

http://vixra.org/author/v_v_demjanov

V.V. Demjanov
[14] viXra:1307.0093 submitted on 2013-07-19 02:37:10, (59 unique-IP downloads)

On the Concept Long-Range Action
Authors: S.V. Akimenko, V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[13] viXra:1307.0049 replaced on 2013-07-10 07:47:36, (241 unique-IP downloads)

Relativistic Explanation of the Experiments by Bradley (1728) and of the Michelson (1881)
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[12] viXra:1303.0164 replaced on 2013-04-08 08:52:52, (228 unique-IP downloads)

How "Conscientious Apologetics" SRT Today Refutes the Per-Versions a Theory of Relativity, that Have Invented Einstein
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[11] viXra:1208.0067 replaced on 2012-09-06 05:01:33, (194 unique-IP downloads)

Secrets of the Two of Concepts of Relativity Theory
Authors: V. V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[10] viXra:1203.0003 submitted on 2012-03-01 07:34:13, (204 unique-IP downloads)

Why Positive Experiments by Galaev, as Well as Miller, Have Yielded "Negative" Results of Detection of Aether
Authors: V. V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[9] viXra:1201.0057 submitted on 2012-01-12 07:35:06, (141 unique-IP downloads)

The Compatibility of Non-Negative Outcome of Michelson&Morley Experiments with Lorentz-Invariant Transformations of the Light Speed in Moving Optical Media
Authors: V. V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[8] viXra:1105.0036 submitted on 24 May 2011, (160 unique-IP downloads)

The World "Axis of Good" (2005) (Pra-Centenary of Special Relativity)
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics

[7] viXra:1104.0082 submitted on 27 Apr 2011, (104 unique-IP downloads)

Experiments on Electron Bremsstrahlung When Passing Through Narrow Slits and Their Interpretation in Terms of Inverse Photoelectric Effect
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Quantum Physics

[6] viXra:1101.0100 submitted on 31 Jan 2011, (599 unique-IP downloads)

Chemical Potential of Equilibrium Electromagnetic Radiation and the Means for Electromagnetic Waves to Propagate in Free Space
Authors: S.V.Akimenko, V.V.Demjanov
Category: Condensed Matter

[5] viXra:1009.0057 replaced on 6 Apr 2011, (312 unique-IP downloads)

Why Over 30 Years Aether Wind Was not Detected in Michelson-Type Experiments with Resonators
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[4] viXra:1008.0075 submitted on 26 Aug 2010, (164 unique-IP downloads)

Why Trimmer et Al. "Did not Detect" Aether Wind in 1973?
Authors: V.V.Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[3] viXra:1008.0003 submitted on 2 Aug 2010, (259 unique-IP downloads)

Why Shamir and Fox Did not Detect "Aether Wind" in 1969?
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[2] viXra:1007.0038 submitted on 24 Jul 2010, (248 unique-IP downloads)

Michelson-Type Interferometer Operating at Effects of First Order with Respect to V/c
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[1] viXra:1006.0002 submitted on 2 Jun 2010, (337 unique-IP downloads)

Detector of Aether Operating on Transverse Doppler Effect
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[mad aetherist (OP)]

What and how the Michelson interferometer measures V.V.Demjanov Ushakov State Maritime Academy, Novorossiysk, Russia∗ (Dated: March 7, 2011)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.2899.pdf



Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with respect to v/c (the third method of measuring the speed of ”aether wind”)
V.V.Demjanov Ushakov State Maritime Academy, Novorossiysk, Russia∗ (Dated: 19 April 2010)
In the first version of this paper (arXiv: 1003.2899v1, 15.03.2010) there is described first, traditional method of measuring the non-zero shift of interference fringe in the Michelson interferometer, operating on the effects of second order with respect to υ/c, and are revealed hidden causes of the failure to measure the shift of interference fringe in the period from 1881 till 1960. It is shown that at the latitude of Obninsk within a 24-hour observation period the horizontal projection of aether wind velocity varies from 140 km/s to 480 km/s. The second version of this paper (arXiv: 1003.2899v2, 15.04.2010) is supplemented with a second method of finding the velocity of the aether wind − through measuring the largest seasonal decrease in the ratio of the summer shift of the interference fringe to the winter one (equaled ∼ 12%). It gave the same interval of values of the projections of the aether wind velocity as the first method. Below the third method of measuring the aether wind is described that appears to be in agreement with the first two methods. More than hundred years there persists a belief that Michelson-type interferometer can not be adjusted such as to detect effects of the first order with respect to υ/c. Below I show that it is possible to measure the interference fringe shift (and thus the ”aether wind”) on the first order Michelson interferometer, and more successfully than on the interferometer of the second order. In contrast to the traditional approach, in the interferometer of the first order the light after splitting on a semi-transparent plate propagates in both arms to the reflecting mirrors in one optical medium (with dielectric permittivity ε1), and returns after reflection from the mirrors through another optical medium (with dielectric permittivity ε2). The shift of the interference fringe is reliably detected in the experiment when turning the interferometer by 90◦ . It was found to be proportional to ε1 − ε2. Experimental data are interpreted in the bounds of the Fresnel drag of light by a moving optical medium neglecting terms quadratic in υ/c. The horizontal projection υ of the Earth’s velocity relative to luminiferous aether thus found lies in the range 140 km/s < υ < 480 km/s depending on the time of the day and night at the latitude of Obninsk. This is the third method of measuring the speed of aether wind. It gives the same range of values as two earlier described methods operating at second order with respect to υ/c.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0103103.pdf

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes i remember. The whole issue has been settled by Demjanov's twin media MMX which is 1000 times as sensitive is the original MMXs.  All it takes is one measurement of aetherwind to "prove" aether.  One measurement (or more) that fails to find an aetherwind simply means that the X is flawed.

Unless Demjanov's experiment is the one that is flawed. Show me a link to the experiment you speak of. I did find this interesting little item about one of Demjanov's papers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375
To quote:

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief. Please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
Reason: Matters have been brought to the attention of the editors warranting further review of this article. This further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published. The Editors and Publisher apologize to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.

Of course, I strongly suspect that you will respond to that with arguments involving the words "conspiracy", "mafia", "suppression" or other related terminology.

The issue cant possibly be whether there is an aetherwind

Of course it can.

aetherwind & aether are proven

Oh really? I thought you agreed that there is no such thing as proof in science?

the only issue is what kind of krappy theory is being used with thems modern MMXs.

The "theory" is based on the equation for the frequency of light: frequency = velocity / wavelength. Where is the flaw in that?

The length of a laser crystal is affected by the aetherwind.

By how much?

The frequency too.

Which is exactly why such an experiment would detect the aether.

I daresay that any such small systematic recurring cyclic reading (proving aetherwind) has been sidestepped by calling it a systematic noise. Am i correct? Yes of course i am correct.

Demonstrate it.

If u quote me one such test i will have a closer look. Handy hint. Find one that doesnt mention systematic noise, else i might die laughing.

And yet if I posted one where systematic noise wasn't mentioned at all, I suspect you'd complain about exactly that. The systematic noise in the following experiment is extraordinarily tiny (on the order of 10^-17: 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. Such a noise level is far too small to be compatible with a positive interpretation of the original Michelson-Morley experiments.

Have a look at Demjanov's papers above -- the Why Over 30 Years paper mentions resonators. Demjanov also does a calibration which shows that resonators show 400 kmps to 600 kmps.

Note that viXra did not censor his papers.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0057v3.pdf

Why over 30 years absolute motion was not detected in Michelson-type experiments with resonators
V.V. Demjanov Ushakov State Maritime Academy, Novorossiysk∗ (Dated: April 5, 2011)
We show that measured by S.Herrmann et al., Phys.Rev.D 80, 105011 (2009) small (but finite) value of relative variation (δν/ν > 0) of the resonance frequency of an evacuated optical resonator, when changing its orientation in space, can not serve as an indication of the absence of a preferred direction concerned with the absolute motion of the setup. On the contrary, the finiteness δν/ν > 0 testifies to spatial anisotropy of the velocity of light. In order to detect the absolute motion and determine the value and direction of its velocity, the volume of the resonator should be regarded, at any degree of evacuation, as being an optical medium, with its refractive index n > 1 to be necessarily taken into account, irrespective of the extent to be the medium’s tenuity. In this event the residual pressure of the evacuated medium should be controlled: that will ensure the magnitude of ¡i¿n¡/i¿ to be known at least to the first significant digit after 1.00000... If the working body is a gas then, as in the case of the fringe shift in the interferometer, the shift δν of the resonance frequency of the volume resonator is proportional to n 2 − 1 = ∆ε and to the square of the velocity υ of absolute motion of the resonator. At sufficiently large values of optical density, δν is proportional to n 2 − 1   2 − n 2  = ∆ε(1 − ∆ε), and at n > 1.5 it may possess such a great value that there even becomes possible a jump of the automatic laser frequency trimmer from the chosen m-mode of the reference resonator to its adjacent m ± 1 modes. Taking into account the effect of the medium permittivity by introducing in calculation the actual value n > 1 in experiments with resonators performed by the scheme of the Michelson experiment enabled us to estimate the absolute speed of the Earth as several hundreds kilometers per second.

[Kryptid]

Have a look at Demjanov's papers above -- the Why Over 30 Years paper mentions resonators. Demjanov also does a calibration which shows that resonators show 400 kmps to 600 kmps.

The very fact that his papers are published on viXra does not bode well for the reliability of the results.

Note that viXra did not censor his papers.

Of course! If arXiv pulled one of his papers, that's not evidence that he was wrong, that is instead evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the truth! Right...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In a bizarre development modern Michelson interferometer experiments use resonant vacuum cavities rather than interference effects, but for which the analysis here is easily adapted, and with the same consequences.

Based on what reasoning?

Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.
Demjanov does the math, & gets an equation for calibration.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Have a look at Demjanov's papers above -- the Why Over 30 Years paper mentions resonators. Demjanov also does a calibration which shows that resonators show 400 kmps to 600 kmps.

The very fact that his papers are published on viXra does not bode well for the reliability of the results.

Note that viXra did not censor his papers.

Of course! If arXiv pulled one of his papers, that's not evidence that he was wrong, that is instead evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the truth! Right...

Yes any mention of an aetherwind is not allowed.  I dont think that Demjanov was given any details.


http://cosmology.info/newsletter/2010acg07newsletter.pdf
I. The stringent rules now applied for arXiv candidate papers are impacting ever more seriously on the listing of papers by new authors or on topics that are even slightly off-centre. There is a definite “old boys’ club” emerging in the arXiv hierarchy, and this is reinforced by the requirement that any submission be endorsed by approved endorsers in the specific category in which the paper is to be archived. Where would an author gain access to such endorsers? At the suggestion of Chuck Gallo, arXiv We would like to appeal to those of you who are approved endorsers to let us have your names, contact details, and categories in which are permitted to endorse. We will display these in a list, and authors trying to get onto arXiv can make direct requests for endorsement to the relevant persons. If you are willing to participate, please send your details to the editor.

[Kryptid]

Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.

They operate on different principles. A faster moving wave with the same wavelength as a slower moving wave will necessarily be measured as having a different frequency. Explain how performing the experiment in a vacuum nullifies this.

[Bored chemist]

Einstein's 1905 STR was falsified in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, who measured an aetherwind.

That experiment famously failed to measure an ether wind.
Why do you say it measured it?
Do you not understand error margins?

[Bored chemist]

Re temp effects, i had a look throo a number of papers & no-one has bothered to mention temp, but i guess that they control temp,

That paper does mention temperature controil. They say it is kept within 0.1C. But they don't then calculate how much difference that makes to the pendulum swing. It's possible that a 0.1C change is enough to explain the "effect" they saw.

Yes. But u can bet that they did preliminary tests noting the effect of temp, giving a curve, & allowing them to correct future results accordingly.
As u say if u are writing a paper where the sidereal day is the main issue then temp is always a bugbear.
Miller devoted tons of time to tests re the effect of temp on his MMX.  Having a temp curve is essential.

OK, so you don't know what an error analysis is.
And, there's no evidence that they made any attempt to look at temperature effects- it looks like they just assumed "0.1C is good enough".

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.

They operate on different principles. A faster moving wave with the same wavelength as a slower moving wave will necessarily be measured as having a different frequency. Explain how performing the experiment in a vacuum nullifies this.

I need to know the details of the X.

[Kryptid]

I need to know the details of the X.

I posted a link to the paper at the bottom of reply #59.

Since I feel like I'm getting sick, I'm going to take my leave from this thread. I don't know if I'll be back or not.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.

They operate on different principles. A faster moving wave with the same wavelength as a slower moving wave will necessarily be measured as having a different frequency. Explain how performing the experiment in a vacuum nullifies this.

I had a look at thems resonator isotropy Xs, ie finding isotropy to about 17 decimals.  I dont understand them. But i dont like the look ovem.

An etalon i think favours photons of a certain wavelength (or multiples i suppose).   Photons are i think sticky, they like to arrange themselves in formations, ie with the same wavelength.  The length of the etalon will favor photons that have a wavelength that is an exact multiple of the length of the etalon.  In that case the photons going each way can form a 2-way formation, here they not only stick together when going the same way, but also stick together when going in opposite directions. 

I dont see how an etalon can produce a favoured wavelength unless certain waves are physically massaged to achieve formations, mostly by an automatic retardation or advancement of the photon, due to the inherent stickyness of photons.  This massaging can i suppose happen gradually over multiple reflexions.  After say 100 reflexions most of the waves will be in synch.

If there is an aetherwind then these sticky formations must be stressed & less efficient. This would be especially so if the wind was a tailwind-headwind. 

Lets look at an etalon rotating horizontally on a table in the lab.  When aligned with the horizontal component of the aetherwind (V kmps) the photons going with the wind have a tailwind, & reflecting back they have a headwind.  Lets say that the solid etalon suffers length contraction in accordance with the standard Lorentz gamma (ie as per V/c*V/c).  This LC is the same numerically for a headwind & for a tailwind. 
A photon going with the wind has the same wavelength in the aether after reflection when returning with a headwind.  Because the photon does not feel the wind, it merely propagates (at c') in what it thinks is a stationary aether.
According to aether theory photons propagate at c kmps in the aether.  Therefore the velocities in the lab frame (the etalon's frame) are c+V  when a tailwind &  c-V  when a headwind. 

However aether theory is wrong, it does not recognise that photons are slowed by the nearness of mass.
There are two kinds of nearness, firstly the severe nearness due to propagating throo say air water glass, & secondly the weaker nearness of propagating near mass.  Both slowings are due to photaeno drag (see my explanation elsewhere), differing only in severity. 

The standard science explanation for the slowing of light in air water glass posits that the slowing is due to the feedback of em fields emitted by electrons that are excited by the photons passing.  That might indeed play a part.  Em fields are photaenos, & photaenos are em fields.  This electron aspect of the issue of slowing is probly not crucial. 

For efficient stickyness i reckon that all of the waves havtahit an end mirror at the max point of the sine wave, or all ovem havtahit at the min point.  That way the waves going in opposite directions will superpose exactly (max on max)(min on min).

I daresay that there might be lots of trains of photons trapped in the etalon, each of a certain wavelength.  However in thems resonatorXs there is a laser feeding one fixed wavelength into the etalon.
The etalon therefor needs to have an exact length of some multiple of the laser wavelength.  And the photons are already in formation when they enter the etalon, ie they are already in synch, no massaging needed.

If there is an aether tailwind then there is a problem.  It is possible to have photons hitting the end mirror at a max (or a min) of the wave, & then hitting the other end at a max (or a min), & in between the maxes & mins will be in synch if going the same way, but will not be in synch with the maxes & mins of photons going the opposite way.  Not fatal but not ideal. 

The real problem arises if the tailwind kmps is gradually changing. If the tailwind increases then the wavefront of the  formation gets to the end mirror sooner, & the waves here will no longer be at their max (or min).  Likewise the returning waves will take a longer time to get to that end mirror, & the waves here will no longer be at their max (or min).  The total time taken to go to&fro will be slightly longer. 
Such an increase in the tailwind will make the etalon less efficient.  If the change is very gradual then the etalon will gradually massage the laser beam so that maxes & mins continue to happen at the end mirrors.  The time gained in reaching one end will almost exactly match the time lost in returning, so that makes it easier. 
However due to the larger tailwind the etalon will have contracted in length.  The time taken to go to&fro will be slightly shorter, offsetting the aforementioned "slightly longer", praps exactly.
Cancelling exactly or not, the shorter length makes things worse for the etalon.  More massaging needed.
If the wind increases a lot the etalon will drop a half wavelength, a sudden jump.  The longer the etalon (mm) then the larger the contraction (mm) & the sooner the jump.  Very short etalons might be better here, ie more stable or something.

If the laser is parallel to the etalon then a changing tailwind is less of a problem. The shorter contracted laser emits a shorter wavelength.  Hencely the shorter etalon works well (contrary to what i said earlier).  The two contractions cancelling probly exactly.

All of the above is magnified if the etalon has air (or some kind of gas).  Hencely etalons have vacuum.  Much more stable.  But the instability of air is not due to the air, it is due to the aetherwind, ie the changing aetherwind, ie the changing horizontal component of the wind (if the etalon etc is sitting horizontally).
Luckily the horizontal aether tailwind in a lab changes only slowly, varying from a low of say 140 kmps to a high of say 480 kmps over 12 hours (depending on latitude) as the Earth spins.  Thats a change of 0.0079 kmp/s/s. 
An etalon rotated at 1 rpm suffers  113.3333 km/s/s.  However as i said this also affects the laser (if parallel).
Ask the Einsteinologists why they like to have the laser parallel to the etalon.  Their response will be hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

So, a vacuum etalon is not going to "detect" aetherwind.  A gas etalon would detect aetherwind.  Einsteinologists have decided to reduce noise & improve stability by reducing the sensitivity of their etalons in their resonanceXs looking for anisotropy of the speed of light.  In the end they have now achieved almost zero sensitivity but show much pride in trumpeting almost zero noise.  The noise has been relegated to about the 17th decimal. 

But Demjanov had a closer look at that there noise. No vacuum is ever perfect.  Demjanov calculated that for a vacuum at the 9th decimal & noise at the  17th decimal the change in horizontal aetherwind might be  600 kmps. 
This calibration was based mainly on the Fresnel Drag suffered by photons in the partial vacuum, based on the standard Fresnel equation. We know that the equation gives good numbers at 6 mps & Demjanov assumes that it gives good numbers at 600,000 mps.

A few extra thorts. 
Why not position the laser vertically, so that its LC wouldnt change during rotation.

A rotating resonatorX is also a SagnacX, but they allowed for that (a minor effect here they said).

Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).

[Kryptid]

I don't see how any of that addresses what I said about a change in the speed of a wave affecting its frequency. Again, how would a laser beam being sent through a vacuum somehow prevent its frequency from being changed as it moved through the aether? The experiment was also performed over a period of 13 months, so the sensor would have tested for the direction and speed of aether wind from every possible point in Earth's orbit. It would therfore have experienced both a tailwind and a headwind at different points during the experiment.

But since you bring up length contraction affecting the lasers, by what factor are you suggesting that it changes?

An etalon i think favours photons of a certain wavelength (or multiples i suppose).

I could only see that as being a problem if the wavelength of the laser is similar in size to that of the optical cavity. The optical cavities in the experiment had frequencies of about 10 kilohertz, whereas the lasers operated at a frequency of 282 terahertz. That would make the cavities about 28.2 billion times larger than the wavelength of the laser beams. So that wouldn't even remotely be a problem.

However as i said this also affects the laser (if parallel).
Ask the Einsteinologists why they like to have the laser parallel to the etalon.  Their response will be hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

The experiment I posted a link to had a laser beam split into multiple laser beams such that they go in two different directions that are set at right angles to each other, so I don't know what you were trying to get at with this nonsense. It sounds like you are implying that the scientists who design these devices don't even know why they make them the way that they do.

In the end they have now achieved almost zero sensitivity

How do you figure that? Noise is reduced by using a vacuum and suspending the device so that vibrations are minimized. How is that going to reduce how sensitive the device is to changes in light frequency?

Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).

So how does that explanation work with phosphorescence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I don't see how any of that addresses what I said about a change in the speed of a wave affecting its frequency. Again, how would a laser beam being sent through a vacuum somehow prevent its frequency from being changed as it moved through the aether?

I dont understand lasers & etalons & how they combine in a resonatorX.  The frequency of a beam is constant in the aether.  But the apparent frequency will of course depend on the observer's speed relative to that aether (not important here). 
The aetheric explanation for a zero change in frequency in a vacuum resonatorX is basically the same as the explanation for a zero fringeshift in a vacuum MMX – there is auto compensation. 

In a VMMX the light takes the same time in both arms because the arm with the tailwind-headwind is Lorentz length contracted due to the aetherwind V kmps in accordance with V/c*V/c in the Lorentz gamma.

In a VRX the laser mounted parallel to the etalon rotates with the etalon & the wavelengths emitted by the laser change during rotation due to the LLC of the axial length of the laser due to the changing kmps of the axial component of the wind blowing throo the laser.  I presume that the frequency changes somehow match changes in some kind of frequency output from the etalon, the etalon frequencies being likewize affected by matching LLC in the etalon.

So a varying kmps or angle of the aetherwind wont have a direct effect on a wave's frequency, but does have an indirect effect due to LLC of the laser itself, & the etalon itself.

The experiment was also performed over a period of 13 months, so the sensor would have tested for the direction and speed of aether wind from every possible point in Earth's orbit. It would therefore have experienced both a tailwind and a headwind at different points during the experiment.

Yes there is an annual cycle to the horizontal component of the aetherwind, because Earth's spin-axis is not parallel to the background aetherwind which blows at say 500 kmps south to north 20 deg off Earth's axis.  But most of the RX effect will be found or not found in any one 24 hr period, thusly proving or disproving an aetherwind (& hencely an aether) can be accomplished in 24 hrs.  An analysis of a full year's results would allow an accurate estimate of the kmps & angle of that there background aetherwind (not really needed here)(but only possible if u are aware of the underlying geometry).

But it does remind me of something i forgot to mention yesterday.  A favourite Einsteinian ploy is to average away any embarrassing numbers.  I notice that VRXs report daily averages, a good trick if u want a big fat zero.

But since you bring up length contraction affecting the lasers, by what factor are you suggesting that it changes?

Say that the horizontal component of the aetherwind changes from a 140 kmps tailwind to a 480 kmps tailwind during each sidereal 12 hrs.  To calculate the LLC u need to insert V into V/c*V/c in the LLC equation for gamma.
 
Here if u insert  V=340 kmps (the diff tween 140 & 480) then that would be wrong.  This would be a kind of Einsteinian way, where 340 kmps would be the Einsteinian relative V  (u could call this the ELC).

Here is the correct way, the Lorentz way (u could call this the LLC).  I insert V=140 into the equation & get a LLC.  Then i insert V=480 & get a LLC.  And the diff is the change.

The change tween 00 kmps & 340 kmps is smaller than the change tween 140 & 480, which is smaller than the change tween 1140 & 1480 which is smaller than the change tween 2140 & 2480, yet the change in wind is 340 kmps in all four cases.

This treatment of V is the essence of the difference tween the numbers arising from Einsteinian LC & neoLorentz LC.  Likewise of course re ticking dilation.

The 140 kmps & 480 kmps are horizontal components of aetherwinds measured by Demjanov during 24 hrs on June 22 1970 at Obninsk which is at say latitude 53 deg.   
The spread at the Equator might be say 00 kmps & 505 kmps depending on time of year. 
At a pole it might be  00 kmps &  60 kmps (or it might be 30 kmps & minus 30 kmps) depending on time of year.  If the wind is blowing vertically then there will be zero kmps horizontally.  At a pole u will of course allways have Earth's orbital  30 kmps giving a tailwind or headwind.

Re that calculation i used to get the LLC, ie inserting 140 kmps & then inserting 480 kmps.  The correct way is to insert the full vector of the aetherwind (ie say 500 kmps) & calculate the LLC along the 500 kmps vector & then use geometry to calculate the horizontal component for a 140 kmps wind & then likewise for a 480 kmps wind & then subtract to get the difference.  But if u do it my way u will get the same number.  Both ways work ok.

An etalon i think favours photons of a certain wavelength (or multiples i suppose).

I could only see that as being a problem if the wavelength of the laser is similar in size to that of the optical cavity. The optical cavities in the experiment had frequencies of about 10 kilohertz, whereas the lasers operated at a frequency of 282 terahertz. That would make the cavities about 28.2 billion times larger than the wavelength of the laser beams. So that wouldn't even remotely be a problem.

I dont understand how the etalon-cavity works.  If the length of a cavity is not important, then in any case my description of the stickyness of photons to photons still applies. I pointed out that an etalon could suddenly jump by a half a wavelength during rotation (praps a number of times)(& then back again later in the revolution).  Demjanov said the same thing, except he said a full wavelength, eg from 380,000 to 380,001 or to 379,999.

However as i said this also affects the laser (if parallel).
Ask the Einsteinologists why they like to have the laser parallel to the etalon.  Their response will be hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

The experiment I posted a link to had a laser beam split into multiple laser beams such that they go in two different directions that are set at right angles to each other, so I don't know what you were trying to get at with this nonsense. It sounds like you are implying that the scientists who design these devices don't even know why they make them the way that they do.

I reckon that if the laser were fixed vertically instead of horizontally then it would make a big difference to the results.  If fixed horizontally but not parallel then it would make a difference but smaller.

Are u saying that the splitting of the laser beam automatically negates my criticism? Praps it might.

In the end they have now achieved almost zero sensitivity

How do you figure that? Noise is reduced by using a vacuum and suspending the device so that vibrations are minimized. How is that going to reduce how sensitive the device is to changes in light frequency?

I said noise, but my meaning was that it was signal not noise.  Einsteinologists are expert at calling embarrassing signals noise.  But even if their identification of noise is 100% correct then that still leaves a possible signal at the 17th decimal. 

According to Demjanov a perfect vacuum will give zero signal, ie the sensitivity is zero, ie null result guaranteed.  But he estimates that the vacuum in most VRXs is only good to about the 9th decimal, ie n is not exactly 1, ie there is Fresnel drag, ie the Fresnel drag is not zero kmps.

Consequently Demjanov inserts them decimals into his calibration equation & gets an aetherwind of 600 kmps.  He got this without arguing about the correctness of the identification of noise/signal, he merely assumed that the VRX is compatible with a signal at the 17th decimal.

Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).

So how does that explanation work with phosphorescence?  ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence   

  I reckon that photons bounce back or not.  If not then they go throo or not.  If not then they are absorbed in some fashion.  If they are absorbed then they might be emitted either with little delay or with a longer delay. 
I dont know much about absorption, it seems that there are a few kinds, mostly due to electrons, involving spins or orbits or bonds etc.

Bouncing back might happen moreso for heavier denser atoms & molecules & lattices.  The photaenos emanating from the central helical body of a photon would have a large reach & in effect make a photon  "almost infinite".  Hencely the rebound would not be much affected by slight irregularities in the surface of the mirror, photaenos would respond to the average surface over a largish area.  Even so for some substances photons would not rebound, they would be absorbed or penetrate.  For substances where photons mostly penetrate the photons would mostly rebound if the attack angle is widened.  It all makes sense.

[Kryptid]

In a VMMX the light takes the same time in both arms because the arm with the tailwind-headwind is Lorentz length contracted due to the aetherwind V kmps in accordance V/c*V/c in the Lorentz gamma.

Let's find out if the numbers pan out. Let's say we start with a laser that is 1 meter long emitting a laser beam with a wavelength of 0.00001 meters. One arm is heading parallel to the aether at a velocity of 500,000 m/s while the other is perpendicular to it.

The length contraction due to the Lorentz factor is L = L₀ √(1-(v²/c²)). Inserting 500,000 m/s, we get:

L = 1 √(1-(500,000²/299,792,458²))
L = 1 √(1-(250,000,000/89,875,517,873,681,764))
L = 1 √(1-(2.781625 x 10^-6))
L = 1 √(0.999997218375)
L = 0.9999986

So the laser apparatus would contract to be 99.99986% of its original length. The wavelength and frequency emitted by the laser would presumably change by the same amount. But does this match the frequency shift for the laser caused by the changing relative speed of light in the aether? Since frequency is velocity divided by wavelength, a laser beam traveling into an aether headwind at 500,000 m/s would have a frequency of (299,792,458 - 500,000)/0.00001 = 299,292,458/0.00001 = 29,929,245,800,000 hertz. Without the wind, the frequency would simply be 299,792,458/0.00001 = 29,979,245,800,000 hertz.

Divide these two frequencies and you find that the laser beam in the headwind has 99.833217% the frequency of a stationary laser. This number does not match the frequency shift caused by length contract and therefore could not be masked by it.

In terms of your argument that a laser beam traveling upwind and then downwind will take the same time to cover the same distance as that from a stationary laser would, let's see about it. We'll assume that the laser cavity is 1 meter in length. So the time it takes for beam from the stationary laser to travel from one end of the cavity to the other (1 meter there and 1 meter back) is simply 2 meters divided by the speed of light, which is 6.6712819039630409915115342894984 x 10^-9 seconds.

In the case of a 500,000 m/s tailwind, the laser beam will take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s + 500,000 m/s)) = 1/300,292,458 = 3.330086964754872398427002785398 x 10^-9 seconds to travel from one end of the cavity to the other. On the return journey, it experiences a headwind instead of a tailwind, causing it to take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s - 500,000 m/s)) = 1/299,292,458 = 3.3412134962652483545041418985573 x 10^-9 seconds to come back. Add these two values together and you get a total trip time of 6.6713004610201207529311446839553 x 10^-9.

Subtract the two times and you get a difference of about 1.8557057 x 10^-14 seconds. The laser beam in a stationary device takes about 99.99972% as long to take its trip as the one in the moving device. So the tailwind-headwind combination does not compensate and make the travel times equal for each laser beam.

But it does remind me of something i forgot to mention yesterday.  A favourite Einsteinian ploy is to average away any embarrassing numbers.  I notice that VRXs report daily averages, a good trick if u want a big fat zero.

Explain how such averaging would get rid of any positive results in this particular experiment. If the device is constantly rotating (making a complete revolution several hundred times per day in this particular experiment), then it's true that it should measure a different aether wind speed during different times of the day. The speed of the device through space at some points would be the Earth's rotational speed plus the Earth's orbital speed, but it would be the Earth's rotational speed minus the Earth's orbital speed at other points. Since the rotational and orbital speeds of the Earth are not the same value, averaging these numbers out would not give you a zero over a day's worth of measuring.

then in any case my description of the stickyness of photons to photons still applies.

What is this photon "stickiness"? Is it something else you made up?

But even if their identification of noise is 100% correct then that still leaves a possible signal at the 17th decimal. 

Of course. I don't deny this. However, it would mean that any previous claims of detecting an aether wind above such an error threshold in less-sensitive experiments has been ruled out (or at least can be considered much less likely, as nothing is perfect).

According to Demjanov a perfect vacuum will give zero signal, ie the sensitivity is zero, ie null result guaranteed.

Yes, you have said this before. However, what we are trying to figure out is why such a thing should be the case. Length contraction obviously wouldn't have anything to do with it, as that would happen whether or not the experiment was done in a vacuum.

[Bored chemist]

I dont know much about absorption, ...  It all makes sense.

Well...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In terms of your argument that a laser beam traveling upwind and then downwind will take the same time to cover the same distance as that from a stationary laser would, let's see about it. We'll assume that the laser cavity is 1 meter in length. So the time it takes for beam from the stationary laser to travel from one end of the cavity to the other (1 meter there and 1 meter back) is simply 2 meters divided by the speed of light, which is 6.6712819039630409915115342894984 x 10^-9 seconds.

In the case of a 500,000 m/s tailwind, the laser beam will take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s + 500,000 m/s)) = 1/300,292,458 = 3.330086964754872398427002785398 x 10^-9 seconds to travel from one end of the cavity to the other. On the return journey, it experiences a headwind instead of a tailwind, causing it to take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s - 500,000 m/s)) = 1/299,292,458 = 3.3412134962652483545041418985573 x 10^-9 seconds to come back. Add these two values together and you get a total trip time of 6.6713004610201207529311446839553 x 10^-9.

Subtract the two times and you get a difference of about 1.8557057 x 10^-14 seconds. The laser beam in a stationary device takes about 99.99972% as long to take its trip as the one in the moving device. So the tailwind-headwind combination does not compensate and make the travel times equal for each laser beam.

Yes i agree, i think u misquoted me or i wasnt clear.  I will reply to this part first & the rest later today.

I said that in a VMMX (a michelson morley experiment done in vacuum) the light takes the same time in both arms (& hencely u get a null result)(ie zero fringeshift) because of (1) LLC in the arm that is parallel to the aetherwind (this arm has a tailwind or headwind)(of say 500 kmps), & this shortening results in photons taking less time to go up & back.  The full explanation for the zero fringeshift etc involves (2) the photons in that arm take longer to go up & back because the headwind hurts more than the tailwind helps, & (3) the photons in the arm with a sidewind take longer to go up & back because they have to crab into the wind (like a plane on a windy day) & hencely have to travel throo more aether.  (1)(2)(3) cancel exactly. 

In the northern hemisphere the horizontal wind varies over a sidereal day from a tailwind of 140 kmps to a tailwind of 480 kmps measured at Obninsk (latitude 53 deg i think).  The full vector is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's axis RA 4:30.  Hencely (4)(5) photons in both arms of the VMMX will have to crab downwards & thusly take longer in both arms, but (4)&(5) cancel exactly i suppose (anyhow they are allways ignored). 

In a non-vacuum MMX (ie in air usually) the photons are (6)(7) slowed to c/n, which affects both arms equally, however the slowing in (2) is magnified moreso than the slowing in (3).  And because of the air we now have to take into account (8 ) Fresnel Drag slowing the photons during tailwind, (9) Fresnel Drag fasting the photons during headwind, here (8 ) has a greater effect than (9) i think.  And (10) Fresnel Drag magnifies slowing in (3).  And (11)(12) Fresnel Drag also affects (4)&(5), equally i think.

So in an air MMX u can get a fringeshift.  I say can because at latitudes above 70 deg the aetherwind can be vertical in which case a horizontal MMX will measure zero fringeshift.  Except that a continuously rotating MMX will always give a systematic linear non-periodic evergrowing fringeshift that can be very large for some designs especially if the rotation is more rapid.  Demjanov explains the (geometric) reasons for this parasitic SLNPEGFS, & he designed his twin-media MMX such that his SLNPEGFS was nearly zero.  Of course anyone can reduce it to zero simply by stopping the rotation for each reading, but apparently this starting-stopping upsets most MMXs & Michelson Miller Morley & Co preferred to accept the need for the arithmetic corrections.
Demjanov (1968) & Cahill (2002) formulated the calibration equation needed for converting fringeshift to kmps. They used (1)(2)(3)(6)(7)(8 )(9) & ignored (4)(5)(10)(11)(12).

Re Fresnel Drag, Fresnel's equation appears ok for water at 6 m/s, but Demjanov's & Cahill's use of that equation for air at say 480,000 m/s might be suspect.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).

So how does that explanation work with phosphorescence?  ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence   

I reckon that photons bounce back or not.  If not then they go throo or not.  If not then they are absorbed in some fashion.  If they are absorbed then they might be emitted either with little delay or with a longer delay. 
I dont know much about absorption, it seems that there are a few kinds, mostly due to electrons, involving spins or orbits or bonds etc.

Bouncing back might happen moreso for heavier denser atoms & molecules & lattices.  The photaenos emanating from the central helical body of a photon would have a large reach & in effect make a photon  "almost infinite".  Hencely the rebound would not be much affected by slight irregularities in the surface of the mirror, photaenos would respond to the average surface over a largish area.  Even so for some substances photons would not rebound, they would be absorbed or penetrate.  For substances where photons mostly penetrate the photons would mostly rebound if the attack angle is widened.  It all makes sense.

I dont know much about absorption, ...  It all makes sense.

Well...

I havnt looked it up, but absorption & re-emission smells fishy.  How does the electron know the correct angle for emission (ie reflexion)?  My bounce theory makes more sense.

Both theories i think have a problem re what happens to a photon slightly inside the surface.  Here the photon has exited the say air & has entered the say glass -- why isnt it reflected off the internal glass. 

Then when exiting the glass & re-entering the air, i think some photons are reflected by the air, how can that be?  My bouncing theory doesnt explain that.  But neither does absorption-re-emission theory i think.