[CraigD]

arkain101 said:

craigd, I'd like you to explain to me why the moving Galileo spacecraft would have delay, as said:…

When I taught freshman Physical Science, I liked to summarize the course’s brief treatment of “modern physics” with a slightly distorted, simplified “history of the theory of Special Relativity”. I think a retelling of it would help explain what I described in post #21.

Once upon a time, physicists believed that light traveled through a medium – called “the luminescent ether” – in much the same way that sound travels through air, or waves through a body of water. The speed you’ll measure for these kind of waves are independent of what creates them, but depend on how you are moving – if you travel toward where they originated, you’ll measure the speed as greater, away from it, as slower (insert an example of measuring wave speed by counting wave as they pass the side of a boat moving against, then with, the waves)

In 1887, a couple of physicists, Al Michelson and Ed Morley, decided to try this with light. (here comes the distorted-for-the-sake-of-making-it-understandable part) They made a nifty gadget that measured the speed of light, and put it on the fastest moving thing they could find – the planet earth, and measured the speed of light moving an unknown speed in the ether, then 6 months later, when the Earth had circled the sun and reversed direction, moving in exactly the opposite direction. They expected to find that the speed of light they measured one way was faster or slower than the other way by 2 times the speed at which the Earth travels around the Sun.

To their surprise, it didn’t. They spent years convincing themselves something wasn’t wrong with their gadget, then years more explanations that didn’t work very well, until finally, in 1905,Al Einstein explained the theory of Special Relativity.

Of course, this isn’t quite what M & M did – they didn’t have a nice “speed of light measurer” accurate enough to detect a difference in speed of light measurements as small as two times the Earth’s orbital speed, so they actually made a more precise, but less understandable device – an interferometer – capable of detecting tiny differences in the phase of light. In principle, however, the experiment can be done with a sufficiently precise “speed of light measurer” just by pointing it in 2 different directions.

A radio signal sent from a precise distance at a precise time can be used to measure the speed of light – that’s essentially how systems like GPS find distance, given a known position and speed of light, and the simple formula: Distance = Velocity * Time. The precision of using this formula to find Velocity given a known Time and Distance depends on how precise our timer is, and how great the distance. The transmitter on Galileo is very far away, so a light measurer made using it, JPL’s Deep Space receiver Network, and a reasonably accurate clock on either end is capable of measuring the speed of light with much greater precision than needed given the difference in speed “pointing forward” and “pointing backward” along the solar system’s path thought the galaxy.

If the radio-frequency light moving between Galileo’s transmitter and the DSN’s receiver is moving at a constant velocity relative to something independent of Galileo and the DSN – called by convention “the luminiferous aether” – we should be able to measure the relative motion of either by the difference in measure lightspeed between them in different directions. If we can’t, light is behaving in a way unlike more obvious things like sound waves, water waves, and machine-gun bullets, and a theory is needed to explain how. After a century, the favorite theory to explain this remains Special Relativity.

[IDMclean]

Your reply has very little to do with my questions. You make assertions about what will be predicted, without talking about how, or why it will be predicted, within the frame of it's postulates.

I observed that according to your table of differences the only fundamental difference is:

KickAssClown said:

The only difference then would be one of absolute reference.

You responded with:

Arkain101 said:

Time for example is be viewed in a new site.
Having the theory correct would lead down a different road than current physics. A road where everything is much more clearly understood.

I do not see how these two are linked other than the result of the difference is what you have responded with. You did not infact list any other key differences, that did not result from the introduction of that single difference.

Care to elaborate on the differences? I don't want conjecture on what it could mean for the whole of physics, I want what it means in terms of this theory in opposition, as an alternative, or as a supplemental theorem to special relativity?

I asked:

KickAssClown said:

Who's frame of reference, then would this be?

Arkain101 said:

There is experimental support to this frame of reference. I also mentioned an apparattus of how to test whether this absolute rest frame is factual.

on a branched note, in responce to:

Arkain101 said:

Time for example is be viewed in a new site.

This specifies what, but does not specify how. How would time be viewed in a new sight? You assert here, but do not then support or explain.

Keep thinking, but try to keep more critical. I like to read what you write, so do keep it up.

[arkain101]

Quote

Care to elaborate on the differences?

thats all you needed to ask.

I sure will do my best. (but as a note, I am expressing the theory as best I can, but I can not answer all questions related to it in pure mathamatical form. That is why one would have to take my word on it and investigate it for themselves. So I apologize for not being able to answer as you expect. I am suggesting this thoery is possible, I am not proving it is.)

Quote

This specifies what, but does not specify how. How would time be viewed in a new sight? You assert here, but do not then support or explain

You hit the head. I have not explained each statement.
Its because it wasnt related to your post and I didnt have the energy today to express the entire statements.

You said the only difference -you see- is absolute reference. But there is however ALSO differences in the time dilation and the dimension dilation. Whether you noticed or not. So in your technical way of communicating, it was correct of me to respond by saying there is more differences than one, and now that you have asked to see more, I will answer that request.

[IDMclean]

Yes, and as I said also in the last post, was that it was the only fundamental difference. Time Dilation and Dimensional Dilation are superficial differences resulting directly from the aforementioned fundamental difference.

That is: If you assert that there is no absolute frame of reference, then there can not be absolute scales of space-time. If however there is an absolute frame of reference, then there are implicitly absolute scales of space-time.

So I am asking for non-superficial differences. Hence Fundamental. Change the fundamental, and you change the results.

[arkain101]

Thankyou CraigD,
The story was fun and entertaining all the way through

Quote

If the radio-frequency light moving between Galileo’s transmitter and the DSN’s receiver is moving at a constant velocity relative to something independent of Galileo and the DSN – called by convention “the luminiferous aether” – we should be able to measure the relative motion of either by the difference in measure lightspeed between them in different directions. If we can’t, light is behaving in a way unlike more obvious things like sound waves, water waves, and machine-gun bullets, and a theory is needed to explain how. After a century, the favorite theory to explain this remains Special Relativity.

This is the most important section I could explain. Even with the "the luminiferous aether", the operation behind light and its travel mechanisms is NOT like sound waves and water waves.

Let me explain.

Lets call Aether X. It is absolute rest.
Lets call moving object 'inertial frame' (A)
Lets call rest observer (
Lets use the speed of light it is 'C'.
Lets use the equations E=MC^2

In the way sound waves work if an object is traveling away from you it will send sound to you more slowly, and distort the sound. A doppler shift.

In aether it does not work like this.

Lets build a scenario with aether.

Any direction the light travels it travels at C, and any observer will measure this.

frame 'A' is moving at velocity 0.2C away from observer 'b' who is at rest.

Frame a is moving 0.2C relative to the aether.

A photon that leaves in the direction of travel of frame a will travel away from observer B at C and will travel through the aether at C.

A photon that travles from frame a to observer b, -this is where it comes together-.
Typically in the way sound works a photon would leave frame A at velocity C minus the velocity of the moving frame A to give a total of 0.8C towards the observer B.
However, in the form of aether, the atom has energy of that of the square of C.
What occurs here is that the atoms on frame A that emmitt the photons must continue to obey the laws of physics. Thus the photon is emitted from frame A to observer B at velocity 1.2C as to remain in velocity C relative to the aether. The photon also travels towards the observer B at velocity C,
as we see with;
-frame A (-0.2C) relative to observer B.
-photon (1 C) must obtain 1.2C relative to moving frame A to remain C for observer and aeather.

We presume that atom (source of light) has the freedom to act up to that of velocity C relative to the aether and nothing else. Thus the energy of the matter must be that of E=MC^2 otherwise it would never create C velocity when traveling away from an observer at velocity .999C (as an example).

The difference is that aether wave functions come from a electrodynamic source and sound waves come from a momentum source.

The aether source has properties which must obey the observed laws of physics.

When this is all implemented into the rest of all motion, space and time. It does as I say work as flawlessly as that of SR.

[arkain101]

The Theory of Absolute Relativity


Introduction
This is a theory of relativity with a form of luminiferous aether of absolute rest. In this paper it is shown the possible flaw in the original testing for luminiferous aether in the famous Michelson-Morely experiment. Furthermore, it goes on to show all experimental data and laws of physics can still be obeyed by a form of absolute rest and luminiferous aether. Lastly the required apparatus to correctly test to show a form or lack of luminiferous aether.



Experimental Data
In the original Michelson-Morely experiment it was expected to have light wave results similar to that of sound waves or water waves. However, this is not the case in the operation of luminiferous aether. It must be considered that any wave of light must comply to the constant velocity of C in all frames of observation, most importantly the absolute rest frame of aether. It is possible to get two types of C depending on which technique you measure the speed of light, both still obey the constant of light to all observers (note: this is possible when we accept light that moves away from an observer can NOT be considered directly observable thus its values elude the observer, but will remain a value of C when measured after its return trip to that same observer). These two types are 1) The time it takes for light to reach a distant detector according to the observer(at light source). 2) The time it takes for light to travel a path and reflect back to the observer.

Let us look at the details behind the latter descriptions.

If you are not familiar with the Michelson-Morely experiment, Visit this link ( http://galileoandein...ets/mmexpt6.htm ) to become familiar with the apparatus and experiment. This experiment was designed to measure a difference in arrival time for the two different paths of light.

The theory of absolute relativity hypothesises there will never be a difference in arrival times between the two different paths of light in an aether enviroment while the system is in motion through the aether, using the configuration in the past Michelson Morely experiment.

There are 5 images including four stages and a conclusion tablet of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.


The system is moving through the aether at a velocity of 0.1C.

Image 1. http://www3.telus.ne...hExperiment.jpg
step 1:The light leaves the laser (light source) at 0.9C head on into the aether which is traveling 0.1C. This is in accordance with experimental data of wave mechanics. The aether is expected to create a wind effect that would differ the velocity of light moving 'upstream' as it were.

Image 2. http://www3.telus.ne...Experiment2.jpg
step 2:The light splits into the two perpendicular paths. The green arrow (we call A) remains going 0.9C, as the paths has been unchanged.
The red arrow (we call turns perpendicular to the aether and is now capable to travel at C or 1C, because it is not moving parrallel with the motion of the proposed aether.

Image 3. http://www3.telus.ne...Experiment3.jpg
step 3:The light reflects and returns to the center mirror. Historically it was not calculated that the light could measure beyond C relative to the apparatus. However, it is absolutely acceptable for the light to reach C relative to the aether on its return trip, thus creating a measurement 1.1C relative to the experiment system. Although, the apparatus observer must take into consideration its own velocity relative to the aether. As so we have;
Observer velocity 0.1C, Light velocity C. Thus the distance that is covered between observer and the light is 1.1C, although this does not affect the true velocity of the light, and all laws of physics are obeyed.

Image4. http://www3.telus.ne...Experiment4.jpg
The light waves turn on the final stretch to make there way to the detector, perpendicular to the aether at a velocity of 1C, at this point they have regained equal posistion (as will be seen in the table of image 5).
note: one arrow was crossed out to show that they have returned to one wave form again.

Image5. http://www3.telus.ne...Experiment5.jpg
This table shows the different velocities of the light relative the experiment system in each step. At the end of the trip the total velocity remains equal. I called this net velocity, however, it is the average velocity that is also equal. In the past they didnt expect aether to be able to function in a way to have light remain as a constant for observers. In the way I have shown, I hypothesis it can.

Here we see that in the past, the expectation of having light act like sound waves or water waves, was incorrect and the experiment would fail because of that. If light acted similar to sound waves it would not coincide with experimental evidence that C remains constant. However, as just previously described, when the source of light is can have a varying velocity of emition, it will agree with lights observed constant.


How is light able to exceed C relative to an inertial frame as it leaves 'downstream' into the aether?

Enter E=MC^2.

While obeying the law that nothing can exceed the speed of light, a moving object is predicted to be able to send light faster in the direction opposite of motion than it is in the direction of motion relative to the observer of that source. In doing so it obeys the law of light always traveling C, relative to the aether, which as mentioned, works into being constant for all observers in conventional return trip measurements.

It is due to this that an atom has the energy of the square of the velocity of light in a magnitude of the multiplication of its total mass.
In order to obey the constant of C in aether mechanics the atom must be capable to act in speeds beyond C relative to itself to match C relative to the aether. However, it is possible for an atom to act this way as said ealier:

Quote

(note: this is possible when we accept light that moves away from an observer can NOT be considered directly observable thus its values elude the observer, but will remain a value of C when measured after its return trip to that same observer).

How to correctly detect a form of aether.

In my understanding, if the Michelson-Morely Experiment was rearranged to only send light in a strait line from, source to a detector a detectable result would be possible, to prove and or correctly disprove a moving aether wind.

An example of the corrected appartus.
Note: light sources aimed in perpendicular angles

laser (light source 1a) to ------------> detector (1b) @ angle x

laser (light source) (2a) to ------------> detector (2b) @ angle y

The prediction of this theory is that the result would find:
- a difference in arrival time for the two light sources
- a difference in frequencies between the two lights (if their sources were identical
- a velocity of the aether

This is a general simple form of the experiment. If the light was capable to make a return trip the experiment would fail to show any change between the two light paths and light would be measured to be a constant of C. The light must make one path from A to B to detect any change.


Conclusion
It is possible for medium (aether) like universe to obey the laws of physics and create the same experimental observation that have been performed to test the theory of SR with space-time.


Support on this theory.

http://www.wbabin.ne...cs/kingston.htm

Quote

A length of 20 meters for each arm should be adequate, since the experiment based on the Mossbauer effect using a gamma ray from iron-57 (‘Harvard Tower Experiment’ by Pound, Rebka, and Snyder) was able to show the difference in speed over a distance of about 22.6 meters, although the results were interpreted as a change of energy rather than speed.

The Mössbauer effect

http://www.rsc.org/E...002Adetunji.asp

Quote

With his hastily-constructed apparatus, Mössbauer recorded the recoilless nuclear resonance absorption of -rays by iridium-191 as a function of the linear (tangential) speed of the source.

apparatus image. - http://www.rsc.org/i...tcm18-36458.jpg

The angle of light source propogation in respect to space can directly affect the frequency emitted from a gas that is excited by the same light (energy) source.

[arkain101]

I am looking to express the following in mathmatical form.



I would appreciate anyones help with putting this paper together full bodied. Math with the logic.

I feel I have made very valid points that should take interest in the science communnity.

Thanks in advance.


I want to express 2 comparissons for the (michelson morely) MM experiment.

Quote

comparison #1.

using the same vector quantities mentioned in the paper I want to show the results with sound wave mechanics for the light experiment.
I want to compare
-scenario 1 with absolute rest space (aether medium)
to
-scenario 2 non absolute space.

Quote

Then comparison #2.

using the same vector quantities mentioned in the paper I want to show the results with this theorys version of light wave mechanics. (that is any light wave will emmit from a source at a velocity 'v'=C .
-scenario 1 with absolute rest space (aether medium).
-scenario 2 with non absolute space.

With this I want to show that the MM experiment was configured in such a way that it was unable to detect aether regarldess if it was there or not.

We understand with experimental evidence that light is the same velocity to each observation frame.
So in comparison #1 we show that sound wave mechanics are false (that which the theory of aethe was constructed on) for light, and that the apparatus arrangement was flawed.

In comparison #2 we can show that aether can infact obey the observed laws of physics and allow C to be constant to each observation frame. Thus also showing that the apparatus was flawed in being able to detect such aether.

It should not be to difficult considering I have the ground work layed out.

I will add it here below.

The system is moving through the aether at a velocity of 0.1C
(and obviously at rest for non absolute space)

That is all the data really needed please see the next post to see the guidelines of the two comparisons.
(and if needed refer to the MM experiment in the Absolute Relativity paper ealier posted)

[arkain101]

Lets lay out the laws of each form.

Sound wave mechancs. (for comparison #1)

from wiki
http://en.wikipedia....niferous_aether

Quote

A simple example concerns the model on which aether was originally built: sound. The speed of propagation for mechanical waves, the speed of sound, is defined by the mechanical properties of the medium. For instance, if one is in an airliner, you can still carry on a conversation with the person beside you because the sound of your words are travelling along with the air inside the aircraft. This effect is basic to all Newtonian dynamics, which says that everything from sound to the trajectory of a thrown baseball should all remain the same in the aircraft as sitting "still" on the Earth. This is the basis of the Galilean transformation, and the concept of "frame of reference".

So this is newtonian form of physics. That is, (back to our MM experiment) if an object was traveling in the wind, the speed of the light wave in this sound wave model would be relative to the streaming wind of the aether.


Absolute Relativity - Aether wave Mechanics (for comparison #2)

In this form the emitter of the light is restricted by the aether, that has a maximum velocity of C to travel through it, and futhermore only a velocity of C.

Thus an object moving through the aether will have light emmit at a slower velocity in the direction of travel (to maintain C in the aether) and a faster velocity in the opposite direction of travel (to maintain C).

In detail: The light retains C, (we base this off of the fact the energy available from the matter is a value of the square of the speed of light with a magnitude relative to the multiple of the matters mass.

Shortly, an object can emmit light between C and C+C (in the range of C+C when the object (light source) is moving very near C). The object (or matter) emmits as fast as it can at all times and the medium (aether constrains it)

This is the guidelines to follow when sorting out:

one last time:
comparison #1 (sound wave mechanics) and comparison #2. (lights obeying aether mechanics)

[arkain101]

I wonder who will be the first to take the challenge.

If you can show the math, you can prove my logic. The person that works this out will have shown aether (absolute rest) is a plausible hypothesis.

I will see what I can do in the meantime.

Note:
If you havnt read each post and want to tackle this problem refer to post's:
37 - http://hypography.co...076-post37.html
and
38 - http://hypography.co...178-post38.html

[CraigD]

arkain101 said:

This is a general simple form of the experiment. If the light was capable to make a return trip the experiment would fail to show any change between the two light paths and light would be measured to be a constant of C. The light must make one path from A to B to detect any change.

Earlier, I suggested that 1-way light travel time data between Earth and the Galileo spacecraft that orbited Jupiter from 1995 to 2003. However, another 1-way radio signal is widely available, from the 29 GPS satellites currently orbiting the earth. Although these sources are much closer than Earth was to the Galileo spacecraft, the clocks on the GPS radio transmitter satellites are much more precise (if they were not, the GPS would not be useful for precision positioning).

GPS satellites are about 20200000 m above the surface of the Earth. The light travel time for this distance is about 0.067 s. Earth orbits the Sun at a speed of about 30287 m/s. So, if light travels at a constant speed relative to a fixed aether, a GPS-derived distance from a satellite directly overhead of a receiver at the equator on an equinox (about 3/20 or 9/21 each year) at about 6:00 AM local time, should differ by about about 2*30287*0.067 = 4058 m. However, GPS is accurate to about 15 m. Therefore, light does not travel at a constant speed relative to a fixed aether, invalidating arkain’s Theory of Absolute Relativity.

Rather than attempt to obtain raw GPS data to confirm, which the typical commercial GPS receiver does not provide, one can examine the technical literature of the GPS, or consult with a person expert in the GPS, to confirm that the system does not calculate an adjustment for the Earth’s velocity relative to any absolute coordinate system. Were there an aether, the GPS would be able to adjust for the Earth’s movement relative to it to provide precise positioning data. It’s not possible for such an adjustment to occur accidentally – it would have to be explicitly coded for in GPS software. My examination of the wikipedia article “GPS”, which list adjustments for sources of error as small as 0.5 m, does not list such an adjustment, confirming the invalidation of the TOAR.

arkain101 said:

I wonder who will be the first to take the challenge.

If you can show the math, you can prove my logic. The person that works this out will have shown aether (absolute rest) is a plausible hypothesis.

I believe I have just disproved the aether (absolute rest) hypothesis.

Arkain is to applauded for making a true, falsifiable scientific hypothesis. In science, a disproven hypothesis is arguable more important than one that has not yet been disproven.

[arkain101]

reply to CraigD.

Hi,

this is just a short reply (its very early for me today, I am hungover, and I am on my way to get alll my wisdom teeth out so I am also pre-drugged up as it were on pain killers), but I really enjoyed the detailed reply today. I have however already considered a satellites dilation and believe I have found a way to equally describe such results and measurments, if you will that we currently find today.
One cause of the dilation in this theory is predicted by gravity
The other cause of dilation in this theory is from posistion misplacement and thus, extended distance to actual object, which results in the long run of around .0000whatever the delay is.
I have not done exact maths but I have done what explains its in the neighborhood. I have only been interested in explaining the section already mentioned.

Quote

Arkain is to applauded for making a true, falsifiable scientific hypothesis. In science, a disproven hypothesis is arguable more important than one that has not yet been disproven.

And thank you very much buddy. It has been a bit of a stuggle and has also required alot of hours to present what I have and its good to hear I have done so rather correctly, consdering I am just a diamond drilling redneck from northwest british columbia

[arkain101]

E=MC^2

Assume it requires an amount of energy from an atom to create a wave in the medium of a static space.

The ammount an object can contain is directly perpotional to its total mass.

Then we use the fact that when light IS made form an atom it must travel C in the static medium of space to obey the constant of light. Or let us say the atom will act in speeds up to C + C however it can only act in a velocity of C relative to the aether. We presume the aether has such properties that allow waves to be created a finite value, C, which is directly related to the permittivity permeability of that space. Which is exaclty how one can calcualte the value of C.

So an atom traveling through the static space at say 0.9C, it must send light out at 0.9C to obtain a value of 0C reltative to the aether, then it must also send out + C on top of that to reach a value of C relative to the aether of which we know is the constant speed of light.

Thus it is not the equation which dictates the energy in mass. It is the way in which mass and matter behaves in the permittivity permeability of the static space that results in an equation of C + C velocities.

Now to understand that when you are dealing with moving energy we use the equation Ke=1/2 (M *V^2)
This explains that the energy in a moving object is relative to the square of its velocity, due to inertia of the two objects that interact to transfer a value of kentitic energy.

So an atoms energy when interacting with the specific values of permittivity permeability of space it is capable to act in speeds of C in one direction relative to the aether and pseeds of C in the opposite direction relative to the aether. Thus the energy in an atom is C^2 mulplied by its mass. That is the theoretical amount of energy to be expelled.

Without any other equation, Energy contained in an atom must be equal to the square of the speed at which it can emmit that energy which is C, and its magnitude of capacity is directly related the total mass of that object.

[arkain101]

editting

[arkain101]

edit.

[arkain101]

"edited"[QUOTE]

Let us go over the Michelson-Morley Experiment. These are the equations and expectations of operation in the experiment. I will explain while refering to this imsage where I beleive it has gone wrong, and what differences come about when you change it (it=the geometry more or less)


Note: from this view on the experiment you are like a birds eye view observation frame. This is important to keep in mind.

In the 'rest frame' example everything looks great, everything IS right. The only thing to remember is you can not see light travel like this. It is purely a hypothetical diagram to express the visualization. This will become important to understand later in this post.

The moving frame diagram is the classical concept of the lights path as it moves with-in a moving frame. It is drawn to cover a longer distance as it reflects along the mirrors. However as I said we are looking from a (birds eye view) observation frame if you will. It is not possible for us to 'see' a photon move along mirrors in this nature. Thus the expectation of it to act in this form is not certain.

One would need the light or laser path to reflect off of dust particles (or smoke particles) as it made its journey along the mirror paths. Thus if there is distance between the observer (from our birds eye like view) and the system, then there is a delay in time, and a seperation in posistion in all moving light paths.

Let us presume that the light path remains at rest (in respect to the direction of motion of the system) as it leaves the light source. Thus as the light moves along it remains covering the same distance as in in the rest diagram, traveling in a strait line. As the light moves there occurs a very slight drift in the light getting left behind. In this thought experiment, only just a slight drift to cause it to impact the mirror just millimeters the the 'left' in comparison to when it is at rest.

Next, the light reflects from this new source, a new photon!, and is sent out towards the center mirror and as it moves it along it again drifts just slightly 'downstream" <--.

Lastly, the light reflects from this mirror and is sent from this new source. Again it is a new photon. This source then sends the photon at C relative to the rest, and above C relative system (if we presume we know the velocity of such an aether).

The distance the light covered remains exactly the same as when at rest. The velocity of the light relative to at rest never changed. And for any posistion of observation the light would still measure to act at C.

An observer that remains at rest with this system observes the same thing, only from a closer distance presuming it is (along for the ride so to speak).

Moving onto the fringe shift.

The wavelength in the form I suggested would act differently.
Laws obeyed: for both the classical form & the form I described
-The light would remain at C
-The wavelength would change depending on the velocity of the system. (in repsect to observers)

In the form I am describing,
Once the two different light paths has been 'fired' in the same direction they should then end up as the same frequency one they reach the detect. This is because it is a new photon fired in a new direction and they are both fired in the same direction and the frequency of these two different paths comes from the same source. So on the final aproach they will then regain the same equal frequency. Aswell as the same arrival time. The only shift that could be measured or expected to be measured would be that of experimental error.

Let us see results of this experiment.
see here [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/morley.html#c1[/url]
or below:
[QUOTE]Over a period of about 50 years, the Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated with growing levels of sophistication. The overall result is a high level of confidence that the wavelength shift is consistent with zero.

______________________ (cm) Calculation Observation Ratio
Michelson, 1881 _________120 .04 .02 2
Michelson & Morley 1887 ___1100 .40 .01 40
Morley & Miller, 1902-04 ___3220 1.13 .015 80
Illingworth, 1927 _________200 .07 .0004 175
Joos,1930 _______________2100 .75 .002 375 [/QUOTE]

We see that there is still a fringe shift. That being two different frequencies arriving at a screen. These shifts are claimed as experimental error. Special Relativity allows NO shift possible.

But as you see in the form of observation I have described, also, no shift is possible.

Thus if this test is considered to confirm something in science, It has confirmed special relativity, and it has confirmed absolute relativity, since they both would not allow fringe in this experiment. This experiment is not one with alot of confidence.


This is why I said there are two techniques to measure light that may give different results. Also, this is why I described the better means of testing for aether.