Claiming to measure ether-drift and actually measuring it are two distinct issues. It's not clear how Miller (or Galaev for that matter) can be sure that what is being measured is, indeed, ether-drift at all.

Error bars aren't mentioned, either. Of course any apparatus is going to give a non-zero measurement (which, apparently, surprised Miller); the question is, whether the calibration of the apparatus leads to the result that, assuming that what's measured can be identified with the ether drift velocity, the value zero can be excluded and to what precision.

As long as the value zero can't be excluded, a non-zero value for the velocity can't be inferred.

Stam Nicolis

He did mention uncertainty levels which excluded a zero value.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thanks. Stellar aberration is another, related topic. Thanks for the reference to Galaev paper. I like the Miller paper because he spends a lot of time explaining the sources of uncertainty and calculation.

In my opinion the so-called "ether" is one of those ideas to declare the difficult and uncomprehended. In chemistry was the invention of "phlogiston" a comparable idea to declare the combustion. It is a frequent practice to invent the invisible, the imponderable, the unknown, the mystical to skip ostensible the limits of cognition.

It's also a frequent practice to evaluate experimental results pursuant to the guidelines of the theories to prove this theories. See the proof of "neutrinos" by Reines/Cowan in 1956 and many others.

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

So, what is causing the effect noted by Miller?

Thierry De Mees

Thanks. I'll read more closely. Cahill mentioned in the abstract he thought "gravitation waves" were detected. He didn't like "ether". But I think "gravity waves" is not correct - at least to current concept of gravity waves. Did you note Emmanouil Markoulakis answer and references above?

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thierry's referred a paper by Cahill which also suggests a vacuum experiment rather than a gas (air) experiment.

Be patient with me, I'm still reading. Galaev's paper seems to rely on velocity calculations - But velocity in a viscous gas (fluid) is caused by pressure, could these experiment be a result of pressure. I'm unsure of the idea of a viscous medium.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thierry De Mees

The Cahill (De Witte experiment) agrees with the Miller 1933 paper. Cahill then suggests the Special Relativity (SR) is falsified. But then he suggest the "Lorentz relativity" is correct. Is he refring to the" Lorentz Eher Theory" (LET)? That is, the length contraction part? Both use the Pythagorean Theorem So it seems to me that one derives the other. How can one be correct and the other not?

In both Cahill and Galaev papers we have go deal with the length contraction issue. I had hoped to do that as part of another question "Is the Lorentz length contraction real or an illusion for a moving observer?

In the Galaev paper, he finds the ether has a viscosity. I'm having a real hard time with this. How can celestial objects (say planets) continue to move over billions of years with a ether viscosity about the same as gas on Earth? On the other hand, His experiment was housed in an enclosure (Miller didn't like this) and on a mercury bath. It's hard to believe the apparatus stabilized (vibrations due to movement quieted) within the 10-12 seconds. How to reconcile lack of viscosity of celestial objects with viscosity of the of the ether?

Hodge

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Yes. The difference between orbital velocity and the calculated velocity (Table V in Miller) is a issue to be explained. Any suggestions?

Emmanouil Markoulakis

RE: Munera, et al., "Observation..."

They have not ruled out environmental effects. They also note the shape of the patter was same as others attributed to environment. Also, Miller took some pains to rule out frequency variation with speed. Munera didn't. Maybe their observation could be due to frequency shift.

I discount this paper.

In the end, you may be correct - the place for this type experiment is outer space (I n a vacuum on Earth implies significant protection). I think I remember someone suggesting sch an experiment. I'm not aware of it being done. Can you imagine in the social situation re: the SR that officialdom would do such a thing?

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thanks again.

Tough nut indeed. So, we're left with needing an explanation of the Miller experiment (or any of the many similar experiments.) particularly the direction.

Marsen was not the first. I saw the space suggestion connected with E.W. Silvertooth as suggested by Aspden, Psimopoulos and Theocharis in 1986.

Thierry De Mees

Agreed. I still don't understand Cahill's comment about the Lorentz being supported while SR is falsified. Lorentz cannot be correct if the contraction is illusion.

John Hodge An object in motion has a little other properties than an object in rest. The changes are very small initially. The only way to differ between rest and different speed of movement is to compare properties by experiments.

This is the crux of Relativity.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis and John Hodge,

Emmanouil: Thanks for citing my post advocating that a Michelson Morley type experiment (MMX) be executed in interplanetary space and/or low earth orbit.

John: Yes, I should have acknowledged that others have previously proposed this experiment in low earth orbit. And you can add Prof. Howard C. Hayden and Prof. Ching-Chuan Su to the list. I've also seen statements by several others but don’t recall their names.

However, at the time I posted, I wasn’t aware, of anyone specifically advocating that the experiment be done in interplanetary space. It is predicted that a signal corresponding to the spacecraft's orbital velocity (~30000 meters/second) will be measured.

30000 meters/second is, of course, the velocity that the original MMX in 1887 was designed to detect. More recent experiments look for motion with respect to the CMBR dipole. This is because mainstream and most non-mainstream physics have assumed that if a preferred reference frame / propagation medium / ether exists, it would be universally uniform.

An alternative concept proposed by Prof. Petr Beckmann in 1986 and by Prof. Ching-Chuan Su in 2000 is that there is a propagation medium which has a variable density that is a function of the local gravitational potential. This implies that every celestial object is surrounded by a “halo” which Prof. Su calls the local-ether. Each local-ether (e.g. the Earth’s) extends out to where the local-ether of another celestial object (e.g. the Sun) becomes dominant (~106 km for the Earth). Further, a local-ether does not rotate with the celestial object; the embedded celestial object rotates within it. In addition, the speed of light is a function of the magnitude of the local gravitational potential.

The local-ether forms the unique preferred reference frame for the propagation of EM waves within it. For the Earth this reference frame is called the Earth Centered Inertial frame (the ECI). This implies that the velocity of an "ether wind" is only the velocity of the Earth's rotation at the latitude of a geostationary experiment (~350 m/s at 40 degrees) and that the direction is always due west. This velocity has been clearly measured by many experiment that involve the one-way propagation of EM wave making them first order in v/c. It was first measured by the Michelson-Gale interferometer in 1926. It has been confirmed with 1012 greater precision by large meter-scale ring lasers like the one at the University of Canterbury [1]. It is also used every day with the pseudo-range correction formula to calculate the location of a GPS receiver. Note that none of these phenomena show any influence from the Earth’s motion with respect to the Sun, the Galaxy, or the CMBR Dipole.

I’m therefore highly skeptical of any terrestrial experiment that reports an “ether wind” that is not equivalent to the Earth’s rotation.

An MMX type experiment involves the two-way propagation (reflection) of a light source. This cancels out any effect proportional to v/c (first order). However a signal proportional to (v/c)2 (second order) remains and could be detected if the instrument is sensitive enough.

This explains why MMX type experiments have come up empty - at least until the Brillet and Hall experiment in 1979 [2]: they were not sensitive enough to detect the velocity of the Earth’s rotation. The signal for a second order experiment is (350/30000)2 = .00014 of a signal due to the Earth’s orbital velocity.

When MMX type experiments failed to detect a 30000 m/s "ether wind", mainstream physics jumped to the conclusion that it meant there was no “ether wind” to be detected. This led inexorably to Einstein’s Relativity.

But the physics of the propagation of electromagnetic waves and light must be the same whether the experiment is first order in v/c or second order in (v/c)2.

The 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment detected a signal consistent with the Earth’s rotation velocity that varied at twice the rotation rate of the interferometer (2ωR) but it was dismissed as “spurious” and was averaged out of the results. The goal of the experiment was to detect an anisotropy due to the Earth’s motion relative to the CMBR dipole and this would only be detectable over a month or more.

More recent MMX type interferometers use cavity resonators for even greater sensitivity. Their goal has been to test for Lorentz invariance violations predicted by some recent theories. At least some of them also mention a 2ωR signal (for ones that rotate the base of the device). They also dismiss this signal as a systematic and average it out of their results. I assert that the 2ωR signal is actually the long sought “ether wind”. However the experimenters appear to be so certain of the correctness of Einstein's Relativity that they assume the 2ωR signal must be spurious.

According to mainstream physics, all first order experiments involve rotation and are therefore examples of the Sagnac Effect. And since the mainstream claims that the Sagnac effect does not violate Einstein’s Relativity they dismiss any first order experiment as not a disproof of Einstein's Relativity.

This is why an MMX type experiment in low earth orbit or interplanetary space experiment is necessary. If done in low earth orbit, the “ether wind” would be equal to the spacecraft’s velocity with respect to the ECI: ~7000 m/s. This would be easily result in a signal that could not be dismissed. If done in interplanetary space it would be equivalent to Earth based experiments except that the spacecraft would be moving with respect to the Sun’s local-ether so the full orbital velocity would be measured. According to Einstein’s Relativity, there would be no signal so this would be a falsification of the fundamental postulates of Special Relativity that could not be denied.

I highly recommend Prof. C.-C. Su’s local-ether model. First read his introductory paper at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060502011021/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw:80/f1a.pdf

For further detail see his additional papers at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180502165811/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw:80

Here are two papers that analyze the Brillet and Hall experiment and make a convincing case that it detected an “ether wind” equivalent to the Earth’s rotation:

Howard Hayden, “Is the Velocity of Light Isotropic in the Frame of the Rotating Earth?”, Physics Essays Volume 4, Number 3 (1991).

H. Aspden, “Laser interferometry experiments on light speed anisotropy,” Phys. Lett. 85A(8,9), 411-414 (1981).

[1] H. R. Bilger, G. E. Stedman, M. P. Poulton, C. H. Rowe, Z. Li, and P. V. Wells, “Ring laser for precision measurement of nonreciprocal phenomena,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 42, pp. 407-41 1, Apr. 1993.

[2] A. Brillet, J.L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979)

Regards,

Jim Marsen

James Marsen

Here's another https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0210106.pdf

I noted the MMX did detect a smaller then expected value. Miller noted this.

Miller detected a "velocity" in a direction (more properly an axis) not consistent with star related direction (Sun, Galaxy, Galaxy in star field, or CMB). It seems that if the direction is inconsistent with any Earth/star velocity, the community seems uninterested.

So, what are these experiments detecting?

I suggest something like Prof. Su. But if ether can support waves it must have the property of inertia. If inertia, then "wind". Why the odd direction Miller detected? The data may have up to a 20 degree uncertainty, but is still good enough to state star direction rejected. The rotation of Earth also rejected.

As a result of the present RG question answers, I have a proposal - I'm writing the paper now.

So, SR is rejected, what are these experiments detecting?

Thierry de Mees

I think that Dr C C Su has suggested a scaled down version of de Witte's method. Two HeNe lasers, with very high frequency stability and very near in frequency, should be connected with optical fiber of a few meters and their phase should then be compared in an interferometer. This equipment could be changed also in relation elevation angle in a periodic way. A linear function could be subtracted and a periodic component detected.

de Witte's method depends on planetary rotation and this can introduce of other effects, like for instance temperature. Su's version does not have that drawback.

Have you considered that possibility?

Regards from __________ John-Erik Persson

To: ALL

these papers have been of help. Thanks.

Th problem as I see it is that MMX and others have measured something but it Not an ether wind (IMHO):

-velocity wrong (Miller considered axial rotation of Earth and Cleveland vs Mt. Wilson [altitude])

-direction wrong

- this last is a bit dicy- if wind has inertia (if ether has inertia as implied by "support wave motion"), then the heavenly bodies such as Earth, planets, Sun, should experience a viscosity. They don't. Otherwise the rotation curves would be Keplerian and all should have collapsed long ago.

Dear John Hodge ,

Thanks for your comments. I now regret using the term “ether wind”. I used it because it is commonly used for describing the motion of a receiver with respect to the postulated propagation medium for EM waves. It's not really a "wind' so it's probably more confusing than descriptive.

Yes, a real physical medium should have a minute mass. I assert this is what Dark Matter is. This explains why Dark Matter particles can’t be detected via EM waves: it is the medium for propagating said waves. And according to Prof. Su’s local-ether model, its density is proportional to the gravitational potential. This fits the distribution curves of Dark Matter measured by Vera Rubin in the 1970’s.

Also, the paper you reference by Robert Klauber tries to explain the “spurious” 2ωR signal detected by the Brillet and Hall experiment. There is a convincing case that this signal falsifies the fundamental postulates that Special Relativity was derived from. However, the author uses the framework of General Relativity Relativity to do his analysis. And General Relativity is founded on Special Relativity.

This paper shows how far down the rabbit hole of Einstein’s Relativity the mainstream has fallen. Are we past the point of no return? Maybe.

I suggest it is premature to ask whether the local-ether has viscosity. We should only postulate the minimum number of properties necessary to establish that it exists through experiment. It’s natural to attribute properties to the ether that are analogous to known materials. Some have even claimed that the ether is a solid to support transverse EM waves. But it is very likely that the ether’s detailed properties are not like any known material.

I read the Miller paper when I was in college and thought he had detected the ether. Later, I read Shankland’s rebuttal and it raised some serious doubts. In particular, he showed how Miller averaged the raw data that seemed invalid. Miller claimed to measure an ether drift/wind that was a fraction of the Earth’s orbital velocity but this was much higher than the Earth’s rotation. His interferometer was incapable of detecting a fringe shift due to a ~350 meter/second ether drift. That’s why I now discount his results.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

James Marsen

Thanks. As you probably know, I follow DeMeo and discount Shankland. But either way we are left with a conundrum.

Please explain a bit more about the speed limitation of Miller's equipment. Shouldn't he just have maxed out and at least got the direction correct (different than he did)?

Dear John Hodge ,

You wrote: Please explain a bit more about the speed limitation of Miller's equipment. Shouldn't he just have maxed out and at least got the direction correct (different than he did)?

In Miller’s 1933 article in “Reviews of Modern Physics”, Miller’s team recorded their data in tenth’s of a fringe shift. From this, he calculated an ether drift of ~10000 meters/second.

For an MMX type interferometer, the fringe shift is proportional to v2 where v is the calculated velocity of the ether drift. The Earth’s rotational velocity at Mount Wilson is 380 meters/second. A fringe shift for this velocity would be (380/10000)2 = 0014 times smaller - much too small for 1930’s technology to detect.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

@Thierry: Thanks for your linked ducument.

The De-Witte-Effect can be declared with slight changes of the properties of the used cable. An object in motion has a little other properties dependent on the speed than an object in rest. The waves have different speed dependent on the rotatiom of earth. Are there seasonal differences?

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

Thank you for your complimentary comments on April 26th.

On further consideration, I now understand that experiments like Michelson-Gale and meter scale ring lasers measure the Earth’s angular rotation rate but only show that the velocity of a terrestrial location with respect to a propagation medium is at least the local the Earth’s rotational velocity (464cos θ m/s where θ is the laboratory's latitude).

They only rule out entrained ether models where the ether is fully or partially dragged with the Earth’s rotation like the one proposed by George Stokes in the 1840’s.

The results of these experiments are as predicted for the ECI (Prof. Su’s local-ether model) and other possible preferred inertial reference frames such as Solar System or the CMBR.

The Michelson-Gale experiment and ring lasers are examples of Sagnac type loop interferometers. Their fringe shifts/frequency shifts are independent of distance from the Earth’s center.

Based on the classical wave propagation paradigm (which implies absolute time and Euclidean space) direct measurements of the velocity of a terrestrial lab with respect to the ECI come from experiments like the one by Saburi et al in 1976 [1] and one by Allan et al in 1985 [2]. These experiments measured the propagation times of microwave signals sent between terrestrial locations separated by thousands of kilometers. The signals were transponded by geosynchronous or GPS satellites. They clearly showed that the propagation time for signals traveling with the Earth’s rotation is longer than for signals sent in the reverse direction. And that the time difference corresponds to the velocity due to the Earth’s rotation at the receiving station. No influence of motion with respect to other possible reference frames such as the solar system or the CMBR were reported. Also, for other reference frames, the phenomenon would vary diurnally and seasonally which also was not reported.

Again to emphasize: 1st order in v/c experiments clearly indicate that there exists a velocity with respect to a postulated propagation medium for terrestrial laboratories and it is due to the Earth’s rotation and only to the Earth's rotation.

Therefore, experiments that are 2nd order in v/c (proportional to v2/c2 ) like MMX interferometers need to search for this velocity (~350 m/s at 40°) before they can declare “null” results. The physics of EM wave propagation must be the same whether the experiment is 1st or 2nd order in v/c.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

[1] Y. Saburi, M. Yamamoto, K. Harada, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. IM 25, 473 (1976)

[2] D.W. Allan, M.A. Weiss, N. Ashby, Science 228, 69 (1985)

James Marsen

Thanks.

I have considered the M-G experiment. My suggestion is that what is being measured is rate of angle change relative to the net $\vec{\nabla} \rho$ from the Sun and Moon. This not unlike measuring the rate of ocean tide level change not the absolute level.

Anyway, claims of "only" are wildly incorrect as long as other experiment reject the model tha is claimed to be "only". We should try to find a model that none reject.

James Marsen

I examined Michelson - Gale paper. I think their data may reject the Earth's rotation hypothesis. (see attached). A cycle in present which would reject if they had reported he time stamp of their observations. As it is the data is at best inconclusive.

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

Regarding your post from April 25th describing an experiment proposed by Prof. Su to test his local-ether model. He proposed a modification of a 1990 experiment by Krisher et al. [1] in §7.2 of “A local-ether model of propagation of EM wave” [2].

Krisher looked for a varying phase shift between two one-way signals sent in each direction over a geostationary (buried 5 ft underground) fiber optic cable with endpoints located 21 km apart. It was based on the assumption that there might be a “velocity of the Earth with respect to the cosmic microwave background”. He was referring to the the Doppler shift in CMBR data (the CMBR dipole) indicating a velocity of ~360 km/sec toward the constellation Leo at 11 hr R.A., -6° Dec. He found no violation of Lorentz Invariance to the limit of the precision of his experiment.

However, Krisher’s experiment was not designed to detect an anisotropy due to the Earth’s motion (i.e. rotation) with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame (the ECI) as predicted by Prof. Su’s local-ether model.

Krisher’s propagation path was geostationary so it depended the diurnal and orbital motion of the Earth to change of the orientation of the propagation path with respect to an assumed universal reference frame to generate a varying phase shift. However the direction and speed of a terrestrial location with respect to the ECI is constant. It is necessary to change the orientation of the propagation path (i.e. rotate it) to generate a varying phase shift to detect this motion.

Prof. Su proposed the following as “a rather direct means to test the propagation model to the first order” (where “propagation model” is the local-ether): Perform a version of Krisher’s experiment on a platform that can be rotated about a vertical axis preferably with vacuum as the propagation path. He predicted a varying phase difference (Δφ) corresponding to the Earth’s local rotation velocity that would vary with the cosine of the angle (ω) between the propagation path and due East (independent of time of day or day of the year). Its amplitude would be proportional to the length of the propagation path (R) and the frequency of the signals (f):

Δφ = .00186 f R cos(ω) cos(θ)

where φ is in degrees, f is GHz, R is meters, and θ is the latitude of the experiment.

Krisher used 100 Mhz signals. Current technology should support frequencies of at least 6 GHz. A 2 meter transmission path should show a phase variation with an amplitude of .017° (~ 1.0’).

The problem with this experiment is that even clear positive results might be subject to an argument by the mainstream claiming that it did not falsify SR because the experiment is not performed in a perfect inertial reference frame. They cite the centripetal acceleration of the rotating Earth. This is a common argument for dismissing any one-way propagation of light experiment as not falsifying the fundamental principle of Einstein’s Relativity that the propagation of light is independent of the motion of the receiver with respect to any reference frame. I would note that this argument should also invalidate the results of 2nd order two-way propagation experiments (e.g. MMX). But this is usually ignored.

Anyway, the mainstream should not be able to dismiss the positive result of a 2nd order two-way propagation experiment (as I discussed on April 25th) since negative results are what the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s Relativity are founded on.

It appears that the De Witte experiment [3] was similar in concept to Krisher’s except that the distance between endpoints was 1.5 km vs 21 km for Krisher and the frequency was 5 Mhz vs 100 MHz for Krisher. Also, De Witte used atomic clocks and the microwave signals were sent over parallel but separate coaxial cables. De Witte cited Krisher’s results as supporting his conclusion of detecting an anisotropy toward the CMBR dipole. But it appears to me that Krisher’s concluded no violation of Lorentz Invariance to the limit of the precision of his experiment.

Also, as I cited in my April 25th post, other more recent MMX type interferometers with much higher precision than De Witte or Krisher report no violation of Lorentz Invariance for motion with respect to a universal preferred reference frame - but not with necessarily with respect to the ECI as a preferred reference frame.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

1. T.P. Krisher, L. Maleki, G.F. Lutes, L.E. Primas, R.T. Logan, J.D. Anderson, C.M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 42, 731 (1990).

2. C.C. Su, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 701 (2001), https://web.archive.org/web/20060502011021/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw:80/f1a.pdf.

3. Cahill R.T., The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment, Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.

Dear John Hodge ,

On May 7th you wrote: “I examined Michelson - Gale paper. I think their data may reject the Earth's rotation hypothesis.”

You can dismiss the results of the Michelson-Gale experiment as inconclusive. But it’s much harder to dismiss the results of two large ring lasers in Christchurch, New Zealand and Wettzell, Germany. These are similar in concept to Michelson-Gale as large geostationary Sagnac type loop interferometers.

They can detect the rotation of the Earth to an accuracy of at least six figures.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser

Regards,

Jim Marsen

James Marsen

Seems like there is always another to look at. So far, when I've looked at the data I see evidence of a sun/moon effects. BTW I also see evidence of bad science. Take the Michelson-Gale, Michelson knew to include dates and times like he did with Morley. But he chose to present something else - the average with a very heavy influenced of a particular model. very suspicious. Further, the actual data support the Sun/Moon by fitting the data - so why not stop.

John Hodge James Marsen

A ring laser can be explained by a rotating surface or by a translating line. Green's theorem. This duality can therefore not be solved by mathematics. However, since equipment is distributed along a line we can conclude, based on physics, that translation inside the equipment is correct interpretation. From this follows also that translation of Christchurch in relation to Earth' center is relevant interpretation and the direct cause of the effect.

From ____________ John-Erik

Dear John Hodge and James Marsen

About MMX

MMX is based on 2-way ether based interaction between mirrors, and separations between atoms in a crystal is based on 2-way ether based interaction between atoms in a crystal. So, the real effect in the longitudinal arm is compensated by contraction of physical bodies, and therefore not observable.

Applying wave optics and Huygen's principle to MMX and cavities means that fastest wave fronts will win. So, wave fronts are always parallel to mirrors. Therefore, no effect of ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX. So, zero effect in MMX can be united with Galilean transform.

Yes, as you said James, it is a magnificent example on confirmation bias to accept useless MMX, but not Sagnac effect, due to the fact that the motion is not exactly rectilinear.

From _______________ John-Erik

Dear James Marsen

Thank you very much for clearing up about C C Su. I have heard about his suggestion, but did not really understand what he ment. I thought that he could use 2 HeNe lasers with high frequency stability and direct compare in an interferometer to drive an up-down counter. Rotating equipment means that we get a linear phase drift due to a very small frequency difference and on top of that a sinus function due changes in measuring direction. I have a question: Do you think such an experiment is possible?

Perhaps you are interested in this:

Article Paradoxes and Failures in Physics

Dear John Hodge you may also be interested in this.

From ________________ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

I've already read the paradox's paper. The STOE explains most of the phenomena.

The MMX experiment DID detect a difference. The 6AM and 6PM readings were the maxima and minima of each days readings. Similarly, the Michelson-Gale were highest at the beginning of each cycle (early in the day?) and declined as the Sun rose from parallel to perpendicular to the plane of the experiment.

The Miller experiment supports a Sun Moon dependence.

So, the length contraction is not a real physical contraction. This accords much better to experiment and philosophy. The measured length contraction observation is the result of the speed of light from the front and rear of a moving object arriving at different times. Thus, a measure in a comoving frame measures no contraction.

This model still allows the Saganc experiment.

Dear John Hodge

...the Sun rose from parallel to perpendicular..

This indicates an effect of temperature.

From _____________ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

The light traveled in a vacuum tube. But temperature is better than suggesting an ether wind.

John Hodge

MMX tests have been done with resonators with very high precision. Still zero is detected.

Joh n-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

You wrote: “MX tests have been done with resonators with very high precision. Still zero is detected.”

As I wrote on April 25th in this discussion, these experiments were looking for violations of Lorentz Invariance assuming the CMBR forms a universal inertial reference frame and find null results.

However, they appear to detect (but dismiss) a signal consistent with the Earth’s rotation with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame (the ECI). This is consistent with experiments that are sensitive to the first order of v/c that clearly detect this velocity.

From one of the most recent experiments by Nagel et al. in 2015 using cavity resonators on a rotating platform [1]:

“Taking error-weighted averages of relevant amplitudes from equation (1) we found a 2ωR amplitude of 98±6 nHz. This value of interest, 2ωR, is only statistically significant, owing to the influence of systematic noise sources (see Fig. 3), the most dominant of which is the dependency of oscillator resonance frequency on external magnetic fields, arising from the presence of impurities in the sapphire crystal25 and ferrite-based microwave components. The frequency variations induced by moving the oscillators through the quasi-static magnetic field of the Earth in the laboratory are indistinguishable from a Lorentz violating signal.“ (my emphasis).

I suggest that it could have been possible to shield the experiment from the Earth’s magnetic field if they weren’t so confident that it must be only a systematic effect.

As I also wrote on April 25th, the best way to resolve this is to perform an MMX type experiment in low earth orbit where the velocity of the experiment with respect to the ECI ~7000 m/s. This is about 20 times greater than the ~350 m/s terrestrial velocity at 40 degrees latitude. It would generate a 202 = 400 times larger phase/frequency shift.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

John-Erik Persson

NOT zero, but a very small value. And a value where(when) it is not expected. That is a key- not to impose a model on the data. They didn't find an ether wind velocity.

Dear John Hodge and James Marsen

You protested when I said that MMX gives zero. I think you refer to C C Su. However, the experiments reported by Dr Su are Sagnac experiments - not MMX tests.

From ________________ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

No ,at least for me. I looked at the original paper and the data they reported. The view they found nothing is from the presupposed assumption that the evidence did not support the "ether wind" model. They are correct. But that does not mean they found nothing. Indeed their data supported my model derived from the Miller data - and it was significant.

So, no ether wind, no real length contraction but their is dependence on Sun and Moon position and influence, but not CC Su model which is rejected.

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

Prof. Su discusses both the one-way first-order and two-way round-trip second-order propagation of EM waves.

Prof. Su specifically discusses Michelson-Morley type experiments in §6.2 of “A local-ether model of propagation of EM wave” [1]:

"From physical reasoning, it is expected that the propagation mechanism in the Michelson–Morley experiment in no way can be different from that in GPS and earthbound microwave link experiments, from the standpoint of any plausible propagation model. The null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the Michelson–Morley experiment reflects no Sagnac correction due to this motion in the GPS pseudorange. On the other hand, the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation in the high-precision GPS and intercontinental microwave link should reflect a non-null effect of earth’s rotation in the Michelson–Morley experiment. The difficulty in the Michelson–Morley experiment is that this effect becomes a term of the second order of the normalized speed, owing to the round-trip path and the lack of relative motion between transceiver and target."

And:

“According to the classical propagation model, the resonance frequency of a cylindrical cavity resonator is inversely proportional to the round-trip propagation time over the propagation path along the cylinder axis. Thus the motion of the cavity with respect to the unique propagation frame tends to affect the round-trip propagation time and hence the resonance frequency. The shift in propagation time can manifest itself as a corresponding variation in beat frequency between two waves from two perpendicular cylindrical cavities [28] or between a wave from a single cavity and a reference wave from a stable source [29,30]. Then, based on the local-ether model, the second-order round-trip Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation results in a quadrupole anisotropy in the resonance frequency of a cylindrical cavity, as the direction of cavity is changing. That is, the resonance frequency is the lowest when the axis of the cavity points in the east–west direction; it is the highest when it is in the north–south direction. As the cavity is rotating slowly with respect to the ground in a horizontal plane, the beat frequency is expected to vary sinusoidally at twice the turntable rotation rate. Moreover, the peak-to-peak amplitude Δfmax for the case of a single cavity can be found from the round-trip propagation time given in (13) as

Δfmax/ f = v2E /2c2 ≃ 1.2 cos2(θl) × 10−12, (14)

where vE = ωERE cos(θl) is the linear speed due to earth’s rotation with respect to an ECI frame, RE is earth’s radius, and θl is the latitude."

"Such a heterodyne system using a stable He–Ne laser at 3.39 μm (f = 0.88×1014 Hz) and a stable Fabry–Perot resonator has been developed [29]. According to the local-ether model, the amplitude Δfmax is expected to be 62 Hz, as the cavity heterodyne experiment is supposed to be conducted at a latitude of 40◦. In the measured data, a term varying at the expected rate has been reported. However, the peak-to-peak amplitude of this term is merely about 17 × 2 Hz and was attributed to a persistent spurious signal among other larger noises. It seems too early to make a decisive conclusion from this experiment. A more careful experiment is anticipated to test the second-order round-trip Sagnac effect supposed due to earth’s rotation.”

(reference [29] refers to the 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment [2]).

I again stress that a Michelson Morley type experiment needs to be performed in low Earth orbit or (better) in interplanetary space to resolve the discrepancy between first order and second order EM wave propagation experiments.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

1. C.C. Su, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 701 (2001), https://web.archive.org/web/20060502011021/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw:80/f1a.pdf

2. A. Brillet, J.L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979)

John Hodge

I regard Dr Su's model very reasonable. Galactic ether wind (300 km/s) would easily be detected. Solar system (30 km/s) is more reasonable. However, if ether is entrained by Sun it reasonably also must be entrained by Earth. So, I agree with Su that we only can see planetary rotation - not translation.

However, instead of Earth entraining ether I think we should assume ether to entrain Earth. Free fall means that the total effect of distant bodies appears to be zero. So, Earth is only entraining the field that the planet itself is generating.

From __________________ John -Erik

James Marsen

See mail to John.

MMX is based on a disturbance in the ether moving forth and later back between mirrors. Atoms in a crystal affect the surrounding ether and these effects are moving at the same time forth and back between atoms and affect the separation between atoms. This means that ether wind can change the length of physical bodies to the same amount the reduction in 2-way light speed. So, effect in longitudinal arm can be compensated by a length contraction 2 times the Lorentz contraction. We do not need time dilation and also no effect in transverse arm.

From ______________John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

Length contraction (the Lorentz Transformation) was a kludge cooked up by Lorentz/Fitzgerald to try to explain the fact that the the 1887 Michelson Morley experiment did not detect the expected variation of fringe shifts.

It was based on the postulate that there was a medium for the classical propagation of EM/light waves that formed a unique preferred inertial reference frame at rest with the fixed stars and further that a terrestrial location moved with respect to this reference frame with at least the Earth’s orbital velocity (~30 km/sec).

Prof. Su’s alternative postulate is that the mass of the Earth generates a gravitational potential field surrounding the Earth that is carried by the Earth in its orbit but does not rotate with the Earth’s daily rotation. It forms a unique local preferred inertial reference frame for the classical propagation of EM/light propagation - the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame (the ECI) . A terrestrial location moves with respect to the ECI and the velocity for a terrestrial Michelson Morley type interferometer to detect is, therefore, the Earth's rotation velocity at the latitude of the experiment.

Prof. Su shows that the propagation of EM/light waves is in accord with the Newtonian paradigm of physics: time is absolute - no time dilation; and space is purely 3D Euclidean - no length contraction. Electromagnetism and EM/light propagation conforms to Galilean relativity and not Einstein’s Relativity or The Lorentz’s Ether Theory.

According to Prof. Su’s local-ether model, the results of the 1887 MMX were “null” not because of length contraction or time dilation but because it was not sensitive enough to detect the velocity of the Earth’s rotation with respect to the ECI as detected and measured by the GPS pseudo-range correction and intercontinental microwave links[1].

Based on this simple intuitive common-sense paradigm, Prof. Su provides qualitative and quantitative explanations for the crucial experiments cited as “proof” of Einstein’s Relativity.

Note that even the modern high precision cavity resonator versions of MMX type interferometers are not sensitive enough to decisively detect a 350 m/s velocity. The investigators are able to attribute any sign of it to systematics (i.e. noise).

I wonder: what if data analysis techniques like those used with LIGO/ViRGO were used to reanalyze these experiments based on the assumption of Prof. Su's local-ether model? It seems to me that the LIGO team is able to extract signals out of much poorer signal to noise ratios.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

1. Y. Saburi, M. Yamamoto, K. Harada, “High-Precision Time Comparison via Satellite and Observed Discrepancy of Synchronization”, IEEE Trans. Instrum.Meas. IM 25, 473 (1976)

James Marsen

No, I do not think that LIGO technology applied to MMX can give anything. It was difficult for Michelson and an increase of sensitivity, from planetary translation to rotation (10 000 times), seems too much. MMX is useless.

In my opinion atomic clocks change frequency as f0(1-v2/c2), since electrons move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. Clocks demonstrates what MMX cannot do.

From _____________ John-Erik

James Marsen

The gravity at the top of a mountain differs from seaside gravity. Therefore, the gravity potential moves with the earth. So, no gravity type rotation wind?

Don't see how Su works.

John-Erik Persson

Atom clock work by transition energy between atomic levels. I don't follow how their rate of movement applies.

A change of gravitational potential may change the levels, but I suspect it changes all levels to the energy difference is changes at least if 4th order.

John Hodge

Bound electrons move forth and back in relation to an ether wind blowing inside the plane of their orbiting. Their speeds are accelerated and decelerated in proportion to +-v/c. So, their frequencies depends on ether wind as fo(1-v2/c2). I have described this in my articles.

From ___________ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

I apologize, but what article (reference)?

John Hodge

See my CNPS page at:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=22

Printed book is most complete. Free book almost the same, but without math.

Abstracts: For instance "Einstein was right - who was wrong.

From _______________ John-Erik

Dear John Hodge

Please, see Remarks to the article “STOE explanation for the ether wind” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337937145_STOE_explanation_for_the_ether_wind_Remarks

Alexander Chepick

Thanks.

I'll study and respond.

Alexander Chepick

Response to Chepick's remarks:

1 "Ether wind" caused by the motion of the Earth in the aether, so the direction of the "ether wind" in the reference frame of the Earth is counter to the velocity vector of the Earth in the rest frame of the ether. The periods of observed displacements of interference bands should be related to the periods of effects assuming as being causes of these bands. In Miller's experiments, which lasted 25 years, a sidereal period was found in the shifts of band. However, for 4 days of experiments it was impossible to detect a similar period. The physical meaning of the term "divergence of the Plenum caused by the Sun and the Moon" is also unclear, especially since there are no Lunar and Solar periods. Therefore, the conclusion: "the divergence of the Plenum caused by the Sun and the Moon, and the measured direction of the "ether wind" are at an angle of 91º± 8º", does not give anything to understand the causes of the formation of the ether wind.

Response: That is the point of the paper - "ether wind" is a misnomer. The paper suggests a cause according to the STOE - see paper's title.

2 Since the velocity vector of the Sun in the ether frame of reference can be considered constant for centuries, and the speed of the Earth around the Sun is approximately 30 km/s, so the velocity vector of the Earth in the ether frame of reference must fluctuate with a period of 1 year. And due to the rotation of the Earth around its axis, the velocity vector of the ether wind in the reference frame of the laboratory on the Earth will rotate with a period of one stellar day, the value of this speed will change during the year, but remaining virtually unchanged during the day.

However, the speed and direction of the ethereal wind is not measured in MMX experiments. The moments of the measure on which a special formula determines the directions of the arms of the device in the stellar reference system are measured ; and measured the shifts of interference fringes, which calculates the direction and magnitude of the ether wind, given the constant parameter, the ratio of light entrainment by the ether wind.

Response: Should put ether wind in parenthesis as the paper suggest a "wind" is NOT the cause of the measurements. A "wind" is a movement of mass - the plenum has no mass. Consult the hourly data in the Miller or MMX experiments. Because the direction of the Sun and Moon DO change from the position of the laboritory duing a day, the hourly data does show variation during the day. However, the plenum density is determined by distance from the Sun and moon, this factor changes little. Secondlu the plenumchange caused by the Earth does not change for the laboratory on Earth.

3 The "light-carrying ether" has been theorized for the wave propagation of light. "Corpuscular ether" was theorized to propagate corpuscles of light, photons..

Response: Not quite true. Newton sugested the aether overtook and directed the corpuscules (Newton, "Opticks" 1730 edition, Query 17). The corpuscules and the aether were distinct components of our universe as the STOE also suggests and as stated in the Paper

4 A car moving on the road does not create wind. Wind is the difference between oncoming and passing streams. Similarly, the Ethereal wind is the difference between the oncoming and passing streams of ether.

Response: Semantics and this your model Not the STOE because the effect measured is not a "wind".

5 The result of MMX is measured interference band shifts. But the speed of the etheric wind is not measured, but calculated. Therefore, the speed of the ethereal wind is not a result of MMX, but a consequence of the measurement results. The result of the measurement is a fact, the result of the calculation is a conclusion from the applied theory; if we apply another theory, we may get another conclusion.

All researchers before 1933 calculated the speed of the ether wind according to the Michelson formula. But Demyanov later experimentally proved its fallacy, showing the dependence of the band shifts on the optical density of the working plenum, and the formula did not have a Fresnel coefficient. So, the calculated small velocity values were wrong, and nothing follows from them.

Response: Sure in another model. The STOE calculates differently as noted in the Paper.

6 In MMX, real shifts of interference bands are measured. The reality of body compression in SR depends on the reality of this theory and the reality of Minkowski space. The compression of material in the framework of SR in bodies is absolutely unrelated to the changing light path model in MMX, because in the framework of SR the light path does not depend on the rotation of the installation in space. Lorenz said this at a conference in Pasadena (1927).

Response: Sure Lorentz compression is NOT real in the STOE as stated. But Lorentz is a measurement a moving system may make of length. See papers in "STOE Replaces relativity and quantum mechanics"

7 Apparently, Miller applied a different formula in 1933. In the early twenty-first century, Reginald Cahill recalculated Miller's results and showed that the resulting rate was compatible with WMAP results.

Response: Are you referring to Cahill paper aeXiv:physics/0608205v1?

"His (De Witte) are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from Miller 1925/26 detection..."

also 1st paragraph of the introduction - "This local (in the galactic sense) absolute motion is different from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy determined motion, ..."

Again, the effect measured is NOT a "motion" in the STOE model.

8 The etheric wind does not have to have anything to do with the Solar system or our Galaxy, but it can have to CMBR! For example, the direction of the Sun's velocity in the experiments of Demyanov and Cahill coincides with the direction of the Sun's velocity in WMAP.

Response: That is NOT the STOE model. Because the STOE model gives excellent results of a comparason to solar system characteristics, the data supports the STOE and rejects the "motion" model. That is the point of the Paper. What is the reference for the Demyanov and Cahill paper?

I saw the paper by Cahill and Kitto that generally looked at Illingworth's experiment using a MMX type equipment and general agreement with Miller.

9 No matter how many concepts of aether assuming supports wave action, the concepts of gaseous ether are much more important because they do not require viscosity.

Response: Gases do have viscosity - small but some. Note falling bodies eventually reach a terminal velocity cause by the gases movement. Viscosity has to do with moving matter. The plenum in the STOE and as Newton suggested has no mass. Indeed, it is component of the universe as is mass a component.

10 The speed of photons varies with their frequency and with the density of the Plenum.

Response: Not with frequency in the STOE. As far as I know, the speed variance with frequency in the Loop Quantum Gravity has NOT been observed.

11 The physical mechanism of the formation of this divergence of the plenum is unknown, and what is its effect on light.

Response: The STOE describes this. See the paper on Photon diffraction and interference.

12 What is the vector direction of the plenum, depending on the position of the Earth, the Sun and the moon?

Response: Stated in the equations for "V". that you have noted in a later comment.

13 What is your vector potential of the gravitational field?

Response: STOE suggests gravitation potential is the divergence of the plenum density. See the Universal Equation.

14 Obviously, this is a misprint

V = Vsun + Vmoon

Response: correct.

15 Miller's vector M is not confirmed by anything. Vector V has no physical meaning. Therefore, unfortunately, the angle ? does not mean anything.

Response: WRONG. "M" is Miller's measurement result. V is dependent on the direction of the Moon and Sun FROM EARTH. Therefore, V is related to the Earth and does have a physical meaning as a distance and direction.

16 The effect of dark matter is more likely.

Response: WRONG. The STOE holds that dark matter doesn't exist. The rotation curves are caused by the divergence of the plenum. The STOE Universal Equation calculaes the plenum divergence of the plenum for rotation curves depends on mass in the galaxy and the Source of the galaxy as calculated in the STOE paper on rotation curves and asymetric rotation curves. Further, the "planet 9" phenominon is another effect of the plenum from the Source of the Galaxy as suggested in the Pioneer Anomaly and Planet 9 papers.

16 Obviously, the direction of the "ether wind" was not measured by Miller, but calculated, and is confirmed by nothing. Vector V has no relation to the Earth, and has no physical meaning. Therefore, the angle \theta does not mean anything.

Response: WRONG. "M" is Miller's result. V is dependent on the direction of the Moon and Sun FROM EARTH. Therefore, V is related to the Earth and does have a physical meaning as a distance and direction.

A. 65. Dear @John Hodge #64,

I will respond piecemeal to your long message #64,

1. The purpose of your article.

I understand that this article is not about the etheric wind, but about some unknown mathematical "process". Then it is desirable to give this process another name, for example, "Gravigut", as you did for ether, calling its analogue as "Plenum".

So I criticize your approach as nonphysical. What is a "scalar potential vector"? For scalar potentials relative to the Earth, their magnitudes are maximal for the Earth itself, since the rEarth distance tends to zero. To get rid of the infinite term, you stated that you needed a characteristic independent of the Earth, and left in function V only the two remaining maximal terms.. By the way, the vector V rotates with the Earth during the year, so the angle θ changes.

But for Mars or Venus, the vector V will have a different magnitude, therefore, the vector V cannot be a real characteristic in the near-solar space. So the vector V cannot affect the real results of the observation on MMX!

If the purpose of your article was to show when something unreal does not affect the results of MMX, then you can be congratulated – you have achieved this goal. But you have to admit that relativity, which is much less complicated but also not real, has reached the same goal earlier you.

But you cannot explain the shifts in interference bands had observed by all participants in the 1927 conference in Miller's experiments.