Michelson - Morley Experiment Revisited

[energia]

okay! now I would like to discuss the problems with the Michelson - Morley Experiment [link]

I believe the experiment was flawed, both technically and conceptually
due to crude (19th century) methods and ill conceived assumsions

for example: why should aether form an absolute reference frame to the rest of the universe? is there any reason to assume that aether cannot be in a state of flux along with all the matter in the universe? if aether was nothing more than a medium through which electromagnetic radiation propagated - would such a medium ramain static with so much wave propagation saturating the cosmos?

the experiment anticipated interference fringes between the light which had passed through the two perpendicular arms of the apparatus. these would occur since the light would travel faster along an arm if oriented in the "same" direction as the aether was moving

but this assumes that the speed of light is not constant
has the speed of light not been proven to be constant?
so there could be no interference fringes between perpendicular light sources

this is the biggest flaw of the experiment
but the problems don't end here

the same effect would be achieved if the arms of the interferometer were not of the same length - but constant realtime adjustment of the interferometer was not possible with the precision necessary to overcome the mechanical variables of a crude apparatus floating in a basin of mercury - this would have required a computer control system which was a century away

In 1895 Lorentz concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by an effect of contraction made by the aether on their apparatus and introduced the length contraction equation

a new sequence of equations were later developed by Poincaré
which lead to Einstein's outright rejection of aether and the acceptance of his Special Relativity as a new standard model

were the Physics community too quick to abandon the aether premise
and jump on the Special Relativity bandwagen?

playing devil's advocate:

what if aether propagates all matter?

what if in fact all matter itself is nothing more than vortices of aether?
with light waves being aether waves - in which case photons do not exist
with gravity waves being aether eddy currents

so, let's trash this theory once and for all!

however if there is no real argument against it's existence
then it may be time to reopen the case for aether

 

[russ_watters]

were the Physics community too quick to abandon the aether premise and jump on the Special Relativity bandwagen?

...1895 ...

Contrary to the insistence of ether "theorists," physics has not stagnated for the past 100+ years.

 

[flash007]

I remember reading somewhere that the original Michelson - Morley Experiment was flawed as they had used a fixed mounted mirror instead of a free mounted mirror. This had something to do with the American Air Force's GPS Project and the "Sagnac Effect" http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm They proved I think that the Earth does move a "aether" of sorts

 

[energia]

Contrary to the insistence of ether "theorists," physics has not stagnated for the past 100+ years

physics has never stagnated

there is no problem advancing physics under a false or ad hoc model
as long as the model fits observations and calculated predictions

this is not to say that SR is a false model, but it is (in any case) a theory
and all theories should be subject to relentless scrutiny

all viable theoretical models deserve examination - popular or not

nuclear physics would have advanced with or without Special Relativity
E=MC² was not Einstein's creation - it existed before SR

Non-Relativistic Quantum Theory would still have lead to nuclear fission
and all the advances of technology during the past century
those who believe that advances in physics owe their existence to Einstein
are delusional

the most dangerous attitude a Physicist can adopt is one of arrogant complacency, that Einstein has lit the way, and there is nothing more to do than follow his light of truth - this attitude is as close to stagnation as science can achieve

 

[russ_watters]

..."Sagnac Effect" http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm They proved I think that the Earth does move a "aether" of sorts

The Sagnac Effect is perfectly well accounted for by Relativity. It des not require an aether. That it does is a common misunderstanding.

there is no problem advancing physics under a false or ad hoc model
as long as the model fits observations and calculated predictions

If it fits observations, how is it false? Conversely...?

all viable theoretical models deserve examination - popular or not

Agreed. Therefore, aether "theories" should be discarded.

nuclear physics would have advanced with or without Special Relativity
E=MC2 was not Einstein's creation - it existed before SR

I'm not sure that's true (source?), and I don't see the relevance.

Non-Relativistic Quantum Theory would still have lead to nuclear fission
and all the advances of technology during the past century
those who believe that advances in physics owe their existence to Einstein
are delusional

There is certainly a lot of physics that does not depend on Einstein's work - the vast majority though, does.

In any case, you are displaying the usual ether theory slant: ether theory isn't about investigating a viable theory, it exists to attack Einstein himself and the work he contributed to for personal reasons. Thats the opposite of how science works: science isn't about knocking down someone else's theory to further yours, but rather scientifically proving yours independent of any competing theory.

 

[energia]

Agreed. Therefore, aether "theories" should be discarded.

on what basis? the Michelson-Morley fiasco?

have you personally gathered experimental evidence disproving aether theory?

or are you just so confident that everything you read regarding the standard model and all criticisms against aether theory are beyond reproach?

btw. I'm a big fan of Einstein, and I'm neither for nor against his theories

I keep an open mind, and in this topic I'm playing devil's advokate.. because 99% of the scientific community think they have all the answers, although they don't... (not even close) so they need to be reminded of the fact

There is certainly a lot of physics that does not depend on Einstein's work - the vast majority though, does.

I think it's more accurate to say that the majority of modern physics is based on Einstein's work, and would not get funding otherwise

the amount of funding that non-standard physics gets is a joke

 

[energia]

I'm not sure that's true (source?), and I don't see the relevance.

the relevance is that Einstein borrowed ideas from others
without listing their sources [link]


Olinto De Pretto published the expression E = m_Mc^2 in the science magazine Atti (Atte) in 1903. His expression was a speculation that was not derived from more fundamental principles such as special relativity. There is considerable evidence that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto speculation and that this was an additional driving force behind his faulty attempt to derive this expression for radiation, at the least. There is also very strong evidence that Einstein never gave De Pretto any credit for his great insight. It is an absolute requirement that one must do a certain amount of literature "research" prior to publishing a claimed new disclosure

 

[russ_watters]

on what basis? the Michelson-Morley fiasco?

Certainly not. Like I said (and you've now displayed why what I said is key): Contrary to the insistence of ether "theorists," physics has not stagnated for the past 100+ years.

have you personally gathered experimental evidence disproving aether theory?

or are you just so confident that everything you read regarding the standard model and all criticisms against aether theory are beyond reproach?

Again, you have the scientific process backwards: its not up to me or any physicist to disprove ether theories. The problem with them is simple: There is no experimental data that requires an ether to be satisfactorally explained, therefore ether "theorists" aren't really theorizing about ether, but rather assuming it to exist without evidence. Hence the quotes around the word "theory."

I keep an open mind, and in this topic I'm playing devil's advokate.. because 99% of the scientific community think they have all the answers, although they don't... (not even close) so they need to be reminded of the fact.

No one who believes they (or science) has all the answers becomes a scientist: if they (or science) already had all the answers, there would be nothing for scientists to do. Science is a search for answers.

I think it's more accurate to say that the majority of modern physics is based on Einstein's work, and would not get funding otherwise the amount of funding that non-standard physics gets is a joke

If it were worth researching, people would research it.

btw. I'm a big fan of Einstein...

...Einstein gets far more credit and praise than he deserves.

Riiiiiiight.

the relevance is that Einstein borrowed many ideas from others and claimed them as his own [link]

Still not seeing any relevance: your personal opinion of Einstein, even if your allegations are true, do not constitute a scientific argument for ether theory.

Again, you are fixated on attacking Einstein (and not even his theories, just the man), when you should be making arguments for your theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding your link, as a former student at the Naval Academy (not an alum), I am dismayed that it would have such a man teaching there and thankful I never had a class with him.

That link is an attack on Einstein for religious reasons.

 

[energia]

the main focus of this topic is that the MM experiment was flawed
this is the only issue which needs to be addressed here
anything else is off topic

Again, you have the scientific process backwards: its not up to me or any physicist to disprove ether theories. The problem with them is simple: There is no experimental data that requires an ether to be satisfactorally explained, therefore ether "theorists" aren't really theorizing about ether, but rather assuming it to exist without evidence. Hence the quotes around the word "theory."

aether was postulated as a medium through which light propagated
(this is not my theory, I'm simply stating historical fact)

in any case no theory has proved one way or another how light propagates
aether is just as viable a premise as any SR has provided, if you stop assuming that aether is a fixed reference frame

and this is the whole of my argument, not attacking Einstein
Einstein was a great theorist, so let's leave it at that

Regarding your link, as a former student at the Naval Academy (not an alum), I am dismayed that it would have such a man teaching there and thankful I never had a class with him.

I am dismayed as well, religion has no place in science

I am not supporting nor advokating any personal attacks on Einstein

here is another (non-religiously motivated) link

only the essential fact that, Olinto De Pretto is the author of E=MC² and not Einstein, which is not an attack, but a fact

there are many other sources proving this fact, the most obvious being the original 1903 publication itself, but this is not so important as the original statement I made - which is that E=MC² predated SR, that's the only point - that nuclear physics would have prevailed in the absence of SR

 

[Integral]

the main focus of this topic is that the MM experiment was flawed
this is the only issue which needs to be addressed here
anything else is off topic

OK.

Since the MM experiment was performed about the time of Einstein's birth, and there are claims that Einstein did not even know of the MM result why do you even mention Einstein or SR. Neither have anything to do with how MM experiment was performed or the interpretation of the results. If you really want to discuss MM why don't you?

I do not get a feel from your posts, what the trouble with the MM was just what was wrong with it? Please be specific and, as you, yourself requested, stick to the topic.

 

[energia]

I do not wish to discuss Einstein or SR

this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existence of aether

Einstein and SR were only mentioned briefly, in a relevant manner

a new sequence of equations were later developed by Poincaré
which lead to Einstein's outright rejection of aether and the acceptance of his Special Relativity as a new standard model

were the Physics community too quick to abandon the aether premise
and jump on the Special Relativity bandwagen?

the first statement is historical fact - the later is a question regarding the abandonment of aether theory on a faulty premise

both of which are relevant to the topic

most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticize poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging

 

[Artman]

I personally believe that there is an undiscovered medium for the propagation of light. However, I thought that Einstein later did not reject aether theory, but contended that it was not necessary for the observations to fit with his theories.

"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."
--Albert Einstein

"Recapitulating: we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether."
--Albert Einstein

Here he was speaking, I believe, about the curving of space-time as a form of ether "fabric".

 

[flash007]

Hey guys here's another link to muse over here's the abstract
Special relativity theory (SRT) claims equivalence of all inertial frames, but it is generally acknowledged that there exists a dipole temperature distribution in the cosmic background radiation (CBR), which indicates that the solar system is moving through this unique inertial frame at a speed of approximately one percent of the speed of light. This evidence for a unique frame conflicts with SRT, and so motivates a search for additional evidence. Presumably, any ether drift should be directly detectable via experiment in either an earth-centered frame, or a sun-centered frame, or both. Spinning Mossbauer experiments, the Global Positioning System (GPS), and Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) are here analyzed for any evidence of ether drift; i.e., for evidence that the speed of light is not isotropic in all inertial frames. Though none of the experiments provides any direct evidence for ether drift, they do provide substantial indirect evidence


http://www.egtphysics.net/Ron1/EtherDrift.htm
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/ Another link

 

[russ_watters]

aether was postulated as a medium through which light propagated
(this is not my theory, I'm simply stating historical fact)

Yes, I know: and that is its basic flaw.

in any case no theory has proved one way or another how light propagates aether is just as viable a premise as any SR has provided, if you stop assuming that aether is a fixed reference frame

Mathematically, sure - but how many assumptions do you have to pile on top of each other before deciding you've built a house of cards? First you assume there is an ether, then you assume it moves in such a way that every experiment ever devised to find it (or that could be dependent on it) has failed to find it. You don't consider that absurd?

A great similar example is the epicycles of Ptolmey. By assuming enough epicycles (dozens), you can eventually build a model that fits reasonably well with the observed motion of the planets. However, like ether theory, you can't derive it from first principles and you can't use it to make any predictions. So what good is it?

this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existence of aether

That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories?

most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticize poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging

Its your thread - I've only responded to the things you mentioned: I focused in on your statements about Einstein because they are revealing about your purpose and particular bias (note: everyone has a bias). If you want to talk about ether "theories" and how they could/could not work and how to test them, do it! (looks like flash007 is getting it started...)

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this:

Presumably, any ether drift should be directly detectable via experiment in either an earth-centered frame, or a sun-centered frame, or both.

Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me ask you this, energia: is there anything (any piece of evidence, explanation, etc) that if found that would cause you to abbandon ether theory?

 

[energia]

That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories?

I understand you now

and yes, it would be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on aether theories..

however we start with the MM experiment because history has created a stigma against aether - due to the success of SR

even in spite of the fact that Einstein himself did not object to the existence of aether

as far as bias, I am biased towards the truth, whatever it may be
I will agree to anything that is true

I did not open this topic to disprove SR - I believe SR predictions fit observations quite well - and with very few exceptions

as far as most statements you've made, I'm in agreement with you

however I disagree on the point that aether need not be discussed

Aether MUST be discussed as long as the true nature of light is unknown

as a physicist you must agree that physics does not exist for the sole purpose of launching satellites into orbit



as scientists we search for the true nature of all phenomena
there should be no limit to the search

Let me ask you this, energia: is there anything (any piece of evidence, explanation, etc) that if found that would cause you to abbandon ether theory?

absolutely! if an experiment could be designed and implemented that would conclusively disprove the existence of aether, I would concede that aether theory was dead

the problem of devising such an experiment is no simple task

 

[energia]

before continuing this discussion, I would like to state for the record that the existence or non-existence of Aether may not be of any consequence with regard to standard astrophysical models (disclaimer) in as far as the true nature of light propagation is not required for practical calculations and predicted results

the discussion of aether theory is (therefore) for the sole purpose of understanding the true nature of light propagation, and the subsequent revision of standard astrophysical models - in regards to the true nature of light propagation, and possibly other aspects as a consequence, depending on the final conclusion

 

[Hydr0matic]

for the sole purpose of understanding the true nature of light propagation

Why not start by resolving the whole wave-particle duality thing first ?
An aether model requires a wave-model of light doesn't it ?

 

[energia]

Why not start by resolving the whole wave-particle duality thing first ? An aether model requires a wave-model of light doesn't it ?

the most common opinion was that light traveled in the form of waves through an aether which was an absolute reference frame

Thomas Young's double-slit experiment (c1805) was an attempt to resolve the question of whether light was composed of particles (corpuscular theory), or consisted of waves traveling through some aether, just as sound waves travel in air

the interference patterns observed in the experiment seemed to discredit the corpuscular theory, and the wave theory of light remained well accepted until the early 20th century, when evidence began to accumulate which seemed to also confirm the particle theory of light

however what is the best argument against light quanta propagating through aether?

or... what if light is an energized state of aether, which propagates as waves
and is also corpuscular in nature?

 

[Hydr0matic]

however what is the best argument against light quanta propagating through aether?

A particle theory including an aether is just as nonsensical as a wave theory without a medium, isn't it ?

what if light is an energized state of aether, which propagates as waves
and is also corpuscular in nature?

That sounds just as vague as current descriptions ... Bottom line is, as you probably know, the only reason why they introduced the aether in the first place was because they were sure light was a wave. That condition still stands today - not 100% wave, no aether.

 

[Integral]

Once again. What was wrong with MM? Why was it that the Physicists of the day, who firmly believed in the existence of and ather, just as you do, were convinced of the necessity of abandoning it? You have not specifed what was wrong with it only that you disagree with the conclusions? PLease restirct this discussion to MM. I do not care what you believe, stick to the facts.

 

[energia]

i never stated what i believe, so don't presume

so far i have only stated facts, and raised questions


i have already stated what was wrong with the MM experiment

it was based on the premise that aether is a fixed reference frame
without concidering the possibility of it being otherwise

and according to SR - light speed is a constant, which would instantly invalidate the MM experiment, even assuming light speed were not a constant
the crude mirror assembly was too unstable, and floated in a basin of mercury
constantly changing it's orientation

furthermore the Earth itself is flying through this so called reference frame at 30000 m/s which could only yeald a null result in any case - since if light propagated through aether and the aether were moving in relative motion to the Earth at 30000 m/s all the light would be propagating with it in the same direction

the experiment and the reasoning behind it were not only flawed
but outright stupid, yet not suprising for a 2 dimensional 19th century mentality

also satellites in Earth orbit measuring light in various orientations will always get the same result, since all Earth orbiting satellites are traveling in the same direction around the sun at 30000 m/s with respect to fixed space

but no one ever takes this into account with these kindergarten experiments do they?

 

[energia]

A particle theory including an aether is just as nonsensical as a wave theory without a medium, isn't it ?

oh? is it?

aether is often compared to water - which propagates in waves, and water is composed of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and subparticles of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc... and yet it makes waves.. big waves, small waves
vortices...

how nonsensical is that

 

[Integral]

according to SR - light speed is a constant, which would instantly invalidate the MM experiment

There you go again, what has SR got to do with the results of MM? SR postulates a constant speed of light and mathematically develops the consequences of the postulate.

The speed of light is NOT CONSTANT due to SR, it is constant due to Maxwell. Contrary to your BELIEF MM was capable of producing the results it did. You claim different, please provide some basis for your claims, and why do modern experiments produce the same results?

 

[Hydr0matic]

furthermore the Earth itself is flying through this so called reference frame at 30000 m/s which could only yeald a null result in any case - since if light propagated through aether and the aether were moving in relative motion to the Earth at 30000 m/s all the light would be propagating with it in the same direction

eeeh.. what??

The reasoning is not flawed, nor difficult to understand. If there's an aether, then light speed is constant with respect to this aether. So if the aether is moving relative the earth, a variation in light speed in different directions should be detectable. (i.e. if the aether had certain specific properties)

also satellites in Earth orbit measuring light in various orientations will always get the same result, since all Earth orbiting satellites are traveling in the same direction around the sun at 30000 m/s with respect to fixed space

What are you saying, that the aether is stationary with respect to all satellites ? Or are you saying that they would get null result even if they traveled at constant speed and direction (which they obviously don't) with respect to the aether ?

aether is often compared to water - which propagates in waves, and water is composed of atoms ...

This ain't an accurate comparison... Can't really figure what is though, sorry ..

 

[flash007]

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this: Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.

Please read the links it explains it quite well
http://www.egtphysics.net/Ron1/EtherDrift.htm
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/

 

[russ_watters]

absolutely! if an experiment could be designed and implemented that would conclusively disprove the existence of aether, I would concede that aether theory was dead

the problem of devising such an experiment is no simple task

Actually, according to the scientific method, that is an impossible task. Even setting aside the inherrent impossibility of proving a negative, it simply can't be done because like with epicycles, you can always add more convoluted mechanisms to allow it.

What you are saying reduces to: 'I believe there is an ether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise.' Not very scientific.

Hydro, good point on wave/particle duality. For some reason I tend to overlook that one..

however what is the best argument against light quanta propagating through aether?

If light were purely a wave phenomenon, it would not have momentum, nor could it be divided into discrete quanta.

aether is often compared to water - which propagates in waves, and water is composed of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and subparticles of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc... and yet it makes waves.. big waves, small waves
vortices...

how nonsensical is that

You're confusing the wave with the medium. Ether would be the water and the sound wave is the wave. Water doesn't propagate in waves (possibly just a grammar issue). Sound waves are sound waves regardless of if the medium is air, water, or steel. Sound is entirely a wave phenomenon.

also satellites in Earth orbit measuring light in various orientations will always get the same result, since all Earth orbiting satellites are traveling in the same direction around the sun at 30000 m/s with respect to fixed space

Orbital velocity is roughly 7,700m/s, so no, satelites are not always traveling at 30,000m/s around the sun. They travel at between 37,700m/s, and 22,300m/s around the sun depending on where they are in their orbit. That difference is enough that if there were a sun-centered ether it would be noticeable in the GPS system.

Here's the usual thing I hear about ether and the MM experiment: its flawed because its stationary on Earth and the ether is Earth centered (or is dragged with the earth), so an MM experiment needs to be done in space. The thing is, so many other similar experiments have/are being done. Would an MM eperiment done in space get the same result as one on earth? Yes. Do we really need to launch such a cumbersome apparatus to test it? No.

Please read the links it explains it quite well

Sorry, flash, this is a discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss, please do.

 

[flash007]

No. Sorry, flash, this is a discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss, please do.

Well if its a discussion group then discuss this conclusion from one of the links

"The only direct evidence for a unique isotropic light-speed frame arises from the dipole thermal distribution of the CBR. In most experiments the effects of ether drift are directly canceled by a corresponding clock-velocity effect. Specific analysis of spinning Mossbauer, GPS and VLBI experiments reveal the cancellation mechanisms. However, in each case, the evidence for an independent clock effect provides strong indirect evidence for the presence of an ether-drift velocity."

and from the other one
Absolute Frame of Reference.

One must conclude that the GPS and all the related experiments give a striking proof that the velocity of light is not constant with respect to an observer, contrary to Einstein's hypotheses. The measured velocity of light is c-v in one direction and c+v in the other. The velocity of light is equal to c with respect to an absolute frame in space. This is now an experimental fact. Finally, we have seen how it is apparently constant in all frames using proper values and a correct clock synchronization.
We can consider the velocity of light with respect to a group of stars around the Sun. However, there is nothing that says that that star cluster is at an absolute rest. It probably moves around our galaxy which itself moves around the local cluster of galaxies. From what we have seen here, we see that the star cluster mentioned above is just another moving frame, in which again, we have an "apparent" velocity of light equal to c in all directions, because we do not know yet, how to get an absolute synchronization of clocks from the absolute frame.
A simple way does not seem to exist, which would enable us to use light to determine the absolute velocity with respect to the fundamental frame in the universe. We have mentioned in a previous paper (9) that there seems to be an absolute frame of reference related to the 3K-radiation dipole in space. It exists, however, another solution than the 3K radiation. Light seems to be inadequate, to verify our absolute velocity with respect to an absolute frame. It exists however another solution to locate that absolute frame, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Most physicists believe that the velocity of light is constant with respect to all frames. As explained above, this is wrong. Let us go back to the question: The velocity of light is "c" with respect to what? The principle of mass-energy conservation requires that light moves at a constant velocity with respect to an absolute frame. Furthermore in all other frames, the velocity of light is always measured to be constant (equal to c) with respect to that moving frame, but it is an "illusion" due to Einstein's discordant clock synchronization.
Some scientists suggest the existence of an "aether" to carry light. A naive "aether" hypothesis leads to a prediction of the velocity of light that could be measured "directly" as c±v with respect to the observer. This is not that simple. One extremely important point is that there exists no observational justification(10, 11) to assume that an aether can possesses its own energy that can be borrowed when needed. On the contrary, all the physical phenomena are explained naturally without having to borrow any energy or momentum from an assumed medium. For the moment, the sole property of that assumed aether is to establish an absolute origin to the velocity-frame of light and physical matter, because this frame of reference is absolutely needed to comply with the principle of energy and momentum conservation. That absolute frame might be simply determined by the average velocity of all matter in the universe.
One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind. It is no longer necessary to fascinate people with the magic of relativity. Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.

Another thing is that this "aether" could explain a lot of the quantum mysteries that are out there especially nonlocality and the fact that the arrow of time runs in both directions and therefore particles exchange or impart info on other particles that are from our perspective in the past.
HEre is link to another similar "aether" called Quintessence
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

 

[DrChinese]

The measured velocity of light is c-v in one direction and c+v in the other. The velocity of light is equal to c with respect to an absolute frame in space. This is now an experimental fact.

...This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.

This is a joke, right?

Of course the measured velocity of light is NOT c±v, as has been tested any number of times. Regardless of which way you move, or which way your experimental apparatus is pointed, all measurements of the speed of light yield a value of c. Even if you don't like MM, this is still a fact and can be tested by anyone anytime.

 

[flash007]

This is a joke, right?

Of course the measured velocity of light is NOT c±v, as has been tested any number of times. Regardless of which way you move, or which way your experimental apparatus is pointed, all measurements of the speed of light yield a value of c. Even if you don't like MM, this is still a fact and can be tested by anyone anytime.

yes that has been explained already but then questions remains if the speed of light is not c±v then what determines the absolute speed of light so it is the same regardless of frame of reference and the velocity of light is "c" with respect to what?

 

[russ_watters]

Well if its a discussion group then discuss this conclusion from one of the links

Ok, go ahead...

yes that has been explained already but then questions remains if the speed of light is not c±v then what determines the absolute speed of light so it is the same regardless of frame of reference and the velocity of light is "c" with respect to what?[emphasis added]

Good, see - that's discussion (run-on sentence, but its a start anyway). Copying and pasting is not.

C is measured to be C with respect to the observer who made the measurement. That's the fundamental postulate of SR.

 

[DrChinese]

C is measured to be C with respect to the observer who made the measurement. That's the fundamental postulate of SR.

Russ,

I quoted you hoping that if your statement is repeated, perhaps it will sink into flash007.

Flash007,

I hope you will understand that Special Relativity also provides a description of how observers in uniform motion with respect to each other will describe what they measure. By understanding that, I believe you will have the answer to what I perceive is your question ("...so it is the same regardless of frame of reference...").

-DrC

 

[flash007]

Ok, go ahead... Good, see - that's discussion (run-on sentence, but its a start anyway). Copying and pasting is not.

C is measured to be C with respect to the observer who made the measurement. That's the fundamental postulate of SR.

Yes I am aware of this as I am also aware of the quantum world and the efforts to unify both SR and quantum mechanics
And as far as I can tell they all have at the heart of the different theories lies an "aether" though called by other names. I am not saying this aether is the same as maxwells just that there is a base energy call it whatever you like Zero point energy, Substratum (Quantum field theory ), stringed energy (string theory)and membrane (M theory)

 

[energia]

What you are saying reduces to: 'I believe there is an ether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise.' Not very scientific.

i never stated what I believe

however: 'I believe there is NOT an aether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise. is Not very scientific either... is it