Issues: 1) In the attached image you have two distinct beam paths: l1 and l2. If you have variable aether modifier k you end up with the travel times t = (l*k)+(l*(1/k)). In each case the scalar k cancels itself out precisely by having the beam inverted for each moment of time. This is to say: whether there is aether motion relative to an observer or not, this experiment CANNOT possibly detect it.
2) The issue is that it presume relative aether motion from the viewpoint of an observer. This, while not necessarily wrong, is fucking dumb to assume for two reasons. 2.a) We're traveling at about 30km/s through the solar system, which is moving about 230km/s through the galaxy, which is moving at about 600km/s through the universe. This adds up to an expected ~860km/s we're moving through the universe, at variable rates in different directions. If there were ANY kind of aether drag (i.e. anything capable of influencing matter) it would have to be undetectably small (even by the difference in momentum light would impart on surrounding matter.) 2.b) If there were any detectable aether drag we've been flying through the universe for some 13.8 billion years. The photon has an incredibly small amount of inertia it imparts when emitted or absorbed, but it is nowhere near small enough that we would not have come to a stop by now.
3) If we're floating in an aether which carries with it inertia in any degree (i.e. capable of AT LEAST impacting the speed of light to a detectable level) then we would have developed a pressure bubble of aether by this point (remember the whole idea is based on waves traveling in water - waves by nature have pressure associated and there is no reason to suspect that giant waves don't exist just as tiny photon-sized waves would.) There would be no relative motion on Earth, or even in the solar system at a detectable level because we would be effectively sitting inside an aether pressure bubble of uniform motion.
>If you have variable aether modifier k Define your terms. If you're going to make up a concept you need to a lot more explaining.
>If there were ANY kind of aether drag (i.e. anything capable of influencing matter) it would have to be undetectably small (even by the difference in momentum light would impart on surrounding matter.) Aether drag was a way to explain the lack of the aether wind from MM. If you claim it is small (by logic which is not clear) then you just disproved your own argument. Secondly if you believe your first claim that MM doesn't disprove an aether then any talk of aether drag is completely redundant. Your argument makes no sense, your other two points are equally impenetrable to logic.
Robert Butler
sweet jesus, the amount of stupid in this post hurts my soul
Anthony Diaz
>yfw aether theory was right all along
Jordan Walker
FINALLY a decent physics thre- >reads OP ...I'll just let myself out.
Grayson Hernandez
>Define your terms. If you're going to make up a concept you need to a lot more explaining. I did define the terms and nothing is made up, it's basic algebra. To reiterate: l = length of run t = time k = scalar value you expect to detect You have mirrors bouncing the light back in the Michelson Morley experiment, so your total length for each arm is l*2 but your modifier k is likewise running backwards half that trip (1/k.) Think of it as trying to swim up a slow moving river and back down a slow moving river the same distance - it's going to take the exact same time as it would take to swim in a still body of water the same distance.
>Aether drag was a way to explain the lack of the aether wind from MM. If you claim it is small (by logic which is not clear) then you just disproved your own argument. Secondly if you believe your first claim that MM doesn't disprove an aether then any talk of aether drag is completely redundant. Your argument makes no sense, your other two points are equally impenetrable to logic. There are hundreds of variations on aether theory. Aether drag is expected under normal conditions only in variations wherein the aether isn't moving along with us, which is a logically retarded thing to assume (pretty much like saying if you toss a raft in a river it will feel the river under it - you're assuming you're anchored to something with that statement which is absurd if it's just floating downstream.)
Jeremiah Sanders
Feel free to point any of it out, or go back to stuffing dragon dildos up your ass. Either way.
Oliver Lewis
Before you leave, would intertial frame dragging be seen in an MM experiment?
Parker Hall
>2.b) If there were any detectable aether drag we've been flying through the universe for some 13.8 billion years. The photon has an incredibly small amount of inertia it imparts when emitted or absorbed, but it is nowhere near small enough that we would not have come to a stop by now. I don't really know if it's understood that a point in earth is traveling at the same speed it was traveling at 13 billion years ago even if it's understood, you're arbitrarily ruling out the possibility that aether drag is actually that small
Colton Smith
I'm ruling out nothing, I'm stating it's retarded to rule things out across all of physics for an experiment with so many logical flaws. Any one of the mentioned issues would be enough to invalidate the current interpretation of the Michelson-Morley results in whole. If I missed a complementary counter-axiom (sorry for the double-negative, but it fits in context) in my analysis that's entirely possible, but considering it wasn't included in the analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment as it was it is irrelevant to the discussion of flaws with the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
