Chapter 8
My First Experiment
"The most exciting phrase to hear in
science, the one the heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's
funny'."
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
The Detection of Ether
Even though in this book the Hafele-Keating experiment was
discussed before my experiments, which will now be discussed, in reality it was
my discovery of ether drag in 1998 and 1999 that attracted my attention to the
Hafele-Keating experiment.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the debate between ether and photons
can be traced back to Sir Isaac Newton.
Prior to Newton, there were several different theories about what light
is. After Newton there were only two,
and the particle nature of light (then called a "corpuscle") was the
accepted theory of light. In the early
1800s, the corpuscle theory of light was disproven (it failed to correctly
predict refraction). Also, Young's
dual-slit experiment demonstrated that the wave nature of light was profound. These two discoveries, and others, combined
to turn scientific opinion to the wave theory of light - the aether or ether
theory of light. Then, for a variety of
reasons, but mainly because of a second round of Compton experiments, the ether
theory was dropped in 1924.[22]
Note that the changes back-and-forth between the wave theory
of light and the particle theory of light have always included some experiment
that indicated the "wave" or "particle" nature of light was
"stronger" than believed at the time. The best solution to determining what light
is, is not to use the "wave" or
"particle" nature of light, because light clearly has both
properties.
In November of 1997, I gave a two-hour presentation to the
Chief Scientist of the large telecommunications corporation where we both
worked. I wanted $16,000 to buy some
equipment for Phase 1 of a series of experiments designed to isolate why the
frequency of fiber optic signals drifted in and out of phase over time. I told him that I thought the problem was
caused by our earth's total motion in space, now known to be 370 kps.
Because I could not believe that a burst of energy (i.e. an
electron quantum drop) could be converted into a very complex particle (a
photon), as easily as everyone said it could, I made it clear to the Chief
Scientist that I thought ether probably existed. For this, and other reasons, I designed Phase 1 of the
experiments to determine whether ether existed. He carefully listened, but he did not approve any funding.
Several months after my failed attempt to get funding I
heard about Roland De Witte. Roland had
done some experiments in Belgium in 1991 that I had never heard of. When Roland sent me a description of his
experiments, I forwarded his email to the Chief Scientist without additional
comment. He understood the significance
of Roland's discovery.
Roland's experiments had proven that the earth's motion in
space caused a drifting in the frequency of electrical signals over time. Roland detected frequency changes that had a
sinusoidal cycle, with a sidereal day period, for 178 consecutive
days (I will explain all of this in the chapter on the De Witte experiment)! Roland's proof that the earth's motion in
space affects frequency changes is exactly what I had predicted for fiber optic
signals. Roland had used the pattern of
frequency changes to detect a URF, the same URF that is also called CMBR, and
his experiment roughly estimated our planet's total velocity in space. One or two days after I forwarded the email
from Roland, I got a call from a manager in the Chief Scientist's department
asking me how much money I wanted for my experiments.
My approach to detecting ether in Phase 1 had to do with the
Big Bang. I felt that because ether
particles were much lighter than atoms, that the expansion of the ether after
the Big Bang was significantly faster than the expansion of the visible
universe. I knew this expansion would
slow down over time, and the process of "thinning out" the ethons
would slow down, but I felt it's expansion was still faster than our very heavy
solar system. Because I did not believe
in ether drag at that time, I had several ideas on how to directly detect the
much quicker expansion of the ether, all of which involved detecting the
bending of light on the surface of the earth.
As part of this effort I built some computer simulations
which were composed of a number of celestial mechanics formulas, coupled with
the direction I intended to point my laser continuously over a 24-hour
period. For several months we did
experiments, but we were never able to get the actual experimental results to
agree with the computer simulations. By
plotting where the laser beam hit a target over the time period of 24 hours, I
was looking for a distorted ellipse caused by the bending of light, but I could
not get an ellipse, much less a distorted ellipse.
See the graphic on next page for an example of a computer
generated non-distorted "ellipse" on a target.
Each of the 25 dots on the target are made by physically
marking the target (this is a computer simulation), once an hour, and the dot
is put where the laser beam hits the target.
The first and last dots are taken at the same time on consecutive days
and thus are on top of each other. The
width of the above ellipse is predicted to be about 9.2 inches (in this hypothetical
experiment) and the height of the ellipse is predicted to be about 5.8
inches. This hypothetical experiment
was done at about 39 degrees north latitude with the laser pointed north, thus
the ellipse is really a circle tilted at 39 degrees.
More will be said below about why I was expecting an
ellipse.
We kept changing the equipment in order to make our
equipment more stable. Then one morning
at about 6:00 AM, at an experiment site during an experiment, it hit me like a
bolt of lightning: "I was not going to get an ellipse, when everything
worked I was going to get a "dot" (i.e. all 25
points were going to be on the same spot), all of the data we were getting was
caused by weaknesses in the stability of our equipment!" Over the next 45 minutes I wrote about 10
pages of notes on the ramifications of getting a dot instead of an
ellipse. I described an
"Ionospheric Balloon" of ether and how this Ionospheric Balloon did
not rotate with the earth, and many other things. I then understood why I wasn't getting any usable results from my
experiments.
Within a period of a few seconds I became a believer in
"ether drag" (though I am not sure whether I knew of that term at the
time), and I knew I was not going to be able to detect the expansion of the Big
Bang from the earth's surface because ether drag was shielding the data I was
looking for.
Prior to this time we had already switched from using a
laser to using a telescope (Note: This experiment can be done with a laser, but
because of beam divergence, it is more accurate to use a telescope.), but I
realized the telescope I was using was not powerful enough to analyze the very
small movement of a dot on a paper target.
We rented a telescope from a science teacher, and on our first attempt
we got a dot. The movement from the dot
on the computer screen (i.e. the motion of the point on a piece of paper, from
the initial point, recorded by our CCD camera) was random and the maximum
movement of the dot was only 5% of the motion of what the original predicted ellipse
would have been.
In a nutshell, what I discovered is this: "if
ether exists, so does ether drag!" Since I already believed in ether, this meant to me that ether
drag existed. However, even for those
who do not believe in ether, it meant that if ether exists, so does ether
drag. If there were no ether drag, and
if ether existed, I would have gotten an ellipse due to the motion of our earth
towards Leo! The fact that I got
a dot is proof that if ether exists, so does ether drag. This might not seem like a major discovery,
but it eliminates one of the possibilities in the ether-photon debate! It means that we do not need to consider the
possibility that ether exists without ether drag.
Because I was dealing with the "path of light,"
instead of the speed of light, and because I wasn't dealing with half-silvered
mirrors, frequency shifts, or interference patterns, there was only one way to
interpret my results. This one
discovery opened the window to experimentally separating the ether theory from the
photon theory without using the particle or wave nature of light as
the determining factor. My
"null" result (a "dot" instead of an ellipse) was not
really a null result at all, I had clearly detected the ether drag if the ether
theory of light is true! So had
Michelson and Morley in hindsight.
Using simple logic, this means that we don't need relativity to
explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.
The Photon Perspective
Thinking back to the photon theory, aberration of starlight
is proof that photons travel independent of our earth's motion towards Leo
(assuming photons exist). It doesn't
matter whether the light is from a star, the moon, or from across the room -
photons are not dragged with the earth.
It would be absurd to think that photons from distant stars are not
dragged with the earth, but photons from terrestrial lasers are dragged with
the earth.
The fact that photons move independent of the earth is one
of the key reasons the ether theory was rejected, because ether drag does drag
light with the earth, but photons don't.
By using the "path of light," meaning the path of a laser beam
or the path of light from a target to a telescope, it is possible
to determine whether light travels by photons or ether, if we know that if
ether exists, so does ether drag!
This is because there is a vast difference in the path of light between
the photon theory (photons are not dragged with the earth) and the ether drag
theory (in which light is dragged with the earth), using terrestrial
light sources, which are entirely inside of the ether drag.
To put it yet another way, if the photon theory is true, the
total aberration of starlight (based on our total 370 kps motion towards Leo)
could easily be detected using terrestrial light because
photons are not dragged with the earth!
But if the ether/ether drag theory is true, this aberration of
terrestrial light will be virtually zero because the light signals will be
dragged with the earth! Thus it is easy to make the final determination of whether
ether or photons exist - determine the aberration of terrestrial light!
Unfortunately, I have never had access to equipment that could make
that determination directly, so I have had to jury-rig different kinds of
experiments that ran into complication after complication. I ultimately had to determine that
terrestrial light does not have aberration by experimentally detecting
phenomenon that led to paradoxes rather than a direct observation. This actually had some unexpected advantages,
but it would be nice to directly detect it some day. I will now start the process of explaining what I did and why I
did it.
Applying the MTLs to My Experiments
In the case of a
terrestrial light source, the platform the target is on is the earth. For example, suppose the earth is headed
towards a specific spot in the constellation Leo at exactly 370 kps. Suppose a laser is aimed exactly
perpendicular to our vector towards Leo and suppose that a single pulse of the
laser is fired towards a fixed target 300 meters away.
Both the laser and
the target are attached to the earth, and both are headed towards Leo at 370
kps. What happens when the laser is
fired, and the laser beam exits the laser barrel? To understand what happens, let us think about two spaceships
traveling side-by-side at 370 kps, 300 meters apart, both headed towards
Leo. The laser is on one of the
spaceships and the target is on the other spaceship. Once the laser beam is "in the air," meaning it has
left the barrel of the laser and is traveling towards the target, we can
instantly ignore the motion of the spaceship the laser is on. Understanding why the spaceship the laser is
on becomes irrelevant once the laser beam leaves the laser is the whole
point of the MTLs!
Once the laser beam
is in the air, we focus our attention on the motion of the target (i.e. the
spaceship the target is on), and ignore the motion of the laser (i.e. the
spaceship the laser is on). What will
happen? The laser beam will miss the
center of the target because the spaceship has moved at 370 kps towards Leo
while the laser beam was in the air.
Exactly the same
thing would happen if both the laser and the target were on the earth. In other words, it doesn't matter whether
the laser and target are on separate space ships or whether they are both on
the surface of the earth, the MTLs apply exactly the same.
The speed of light is
about 300,000 kps. The velocity of the
earth is about 370 kps. Thus, the
velocity of the earth is about 0.001233 of the speed of light. So if the laser beam travels 300 meters, for
example, the target travels about 0.37 meters towards Leo while the laser beam
is "in the air!" This
means the laser beam should miss the center of the target where it was
originally aimed by about 0.37 meters!
But now there is a
problem, it is impossible to determine exactly where the laser was originally
aimed because light is also traveling from the target to the laser (i.e. from
the target to the eyes of the person aiming the laser), and for this light the
laser (i.e. the eyes of the person aiming the laser) is the moving target. To overcome this paradoxical problem, it is
necessary to build a computer simulation program that can, from the spot the
laser beam hits the target, calculate where the laser was originally
aimed. But, by itself, this doesn't
prove anything because it requires several assumptions. To overcome making any assumptions, the
experiment needs to be done continually over 24 hours. How this avoids making assumptions requires
some visualization, which will also help understand the MTLs.
The Toothpick / Globe Exercise
To visually
understand my experiments, tape a toothpick (pointing north) to a globe, say at
40 degrees north latitude. (Warning: Do
not use a type of tape that will tear the globe's surface.) Also place a string tightly between the
center of the bottom of the globe stand and the edge of the table the globe is
on (i.e. it must be straight). The
toothpick represents the vector of the laser beam. The string represents the vector of our earth towards Leo.
Now spin the globe
very slowly and note the continuously changing angular relationship between the
toothpick (i.e. which represents the path of the laser beam, the laser is not
touched during the experiment) and the string (i.e. which represents our
earth's path towards Leo). The earth is
almost uniformly moving towards Leo, but the earth's rotation causes the laser
beam (the toothpick) to change angles continuously relative to our path towards
Leo (the string), which never changes during the exercise. Spin the globe several times very
slowly. In the time the laser beam is
in the air, the earth moves along the path of the string. The toothpick is constantly changing angles,
but the string never changes its direction.
Now lets simulate the
actual experiment with the globe. Put a
"target" at the north end of the toothpick (the target should be
about 5 cm wide). The target, a small
piece of cardboard, should be normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the toothpick, and
its center should be touching the toothpick.
Attach or tape the target to the globe.
Now untape the toothpick from the globe. This is because the laser beam will not
travel with the earth towards Leo, only the target will move with the
earth. Hold the toothpick with your
fingers and point it to the center of the target. Put a mark on the cardboard where the tip of the toothpick is
touching the target.
Now imagine that the
laser is fired. Move the globe 2 cm
towards Leo (i.e. towards the edge of the table along the string). Hold the toothpick in place with your
fingers and do not move the toothpick as you move the globe. In other words, the toothpick must remain
fixed relative to the table while the globe is moved. The 2 cm represents the motion of the earth
towards Leo while the laser beam is "in the air." Since the target is taped to the
globe, it obviously moves with the globe.
The motion of the target is significant because the beam has not yet hit
the target.
Note, do not rotate
the globe as you move the globe along the string. The velocity of the rotation of the earth is so slow, relative to
the speed of light, that the earth's rotation is totally irrelevant to this
experiment. Any rotation of the globe
as you move the globe along the string will throw off this demonstration.
Since the toothpick
is not attached to the globe, and you are holding it motionless in the air,
relative to the table, the toothpick will not move towards Leo with the
globe. When you have stopped moving the
globe 2 cm, the tip of the toothpick will not be touching the target at the
same place it was touching the target before the globe was moved. Now mark the spot where the laser actually
hits the target. You will now have two
marks on the cardboard, the center and one mark after moving the globe.
Now continue to do
the experiment for 24 simulated hours by doing the following:
1) Rotate the globe
15 or 30 degrees without moving it along the string.
2) Before moving the
globe along the string, reset (i.e. realign) the north tip
of the toothpick with the center dot on the target (i.e. every time before
moving the globe along the string, move the toothpick to the original
spot on the target and at the original North angle relative to the globe - this
is critical), and then
3) Move the globe
exactly the same distance in the direction of the string as before (do not move
the toothpick with the globe and do not rotate the globe as you are moving it
along the string), and then
4) Mark each spot
after you move the globe along the string, and then
5) Repeat the first
four steps until you have completed rotating the globe (i.e. until you have
simulated 24 hours).
You should see a
pattern develop that looks like a very crude ellipse.
Especially note that
half-way through the exercise, after rotating the globe 180 degrees (i.e. for
12 hypothetical hours of earth's rotation), the new dot is on the opposite side
of the center of the target than the first dot was. Note also that the tips of the toothpick have effectively
switched places at this 12 hour mark.
Ponder these things because they will become very important in the next
chapter.
Each mark represents
what happens if a laser beam is fired at a target. The target moves with the earth towards Leo. But aberration of starlight (via the photon
theory) tells us that the laser beam will not move with the earth towards
Leo. After the photons are "in the
air," the photons will move in a straight line relative to CMBR (the
table), and will not be dragged with the earth. Since the angular relationship is continually changing between
our path towards Leo and the path of the laser beam (because of the rotation of
the earth), the "miss" of the laser beam will continually change.
In other words,
suppose the laser beam were fired 25 times, once an hour, where the first and
last firing would hit the same spot (well, not exactly, the first and last
spots will not be exactly the same spot because the earth is orbiting around
the sun, but it should be very close).
The laser beam would hit the target in 24 different places. This is because the rotation of the earth
constantly changes the angular relationship between our vector towards Leo and
the vector of the laser beam. If fact,
if we marked these 24 different positions, they would form an ellipse (see the
graph earlier in this chapter). The
ellipse would actually be a circle tilted at 40 degrees (which is the latitude
of the laser).
This is the key: in
my experiment I did not need to know where the laser was originally
pointed. All I needed to do was plot
the 25 firings of the laser and the center of the ellipse (i.e. the center of
the tilted circle) would be where the laser was actually aimed during the
experiment.
The Actual Experiment
In my first
experiments, I shot a laser at a target 300 feet away (and other distances in
other experiments). In the time it took
the laser beam to hit the target, the earth (and thus the target) moved about
4.44 inches (in 3D) towards Leo (i.e. 0.37 of one foot). Since the motion of photons (as always,
assuming the photon theory) and the motion of the earth are independent, I
should have missed the target by 3.6 inches (in 2D) because of the MTLs.[23]
The reader might think that the correct answer would be a 4.44 inch
miss, and it would always be a 4.44 inch miss in 3D. But remember that the experiment is being done at 40 degrees
north latitude (actually it was closer to 39 degrees north), thus the maximum
2D miss is not equal to the constant 3D miss.
Actually, the 3.6 inch number was obtained with a considerable amount of
celestial mechanics formulas and represents the maximum "miss" (in
2D) over the 24 hours in any direction at about 39 degrees north latitude.
In order to avoid
many complications (such as knowing where the laser beam was "really"
pointing) I did two things. First, I
used a computer simulation and celestial mechanics formulas to determine the
exact vector of the laser beam to our earth's vector towards Leo at any given
time. This allowed me to project the 3D
"misses" of 4.44 inches to a projected maximum 3.6 inch
"miss" in 2D. Second, and
most important, I did the experiment continuously over a 24-hour period (one
complete rotation of the earth), as already explained.
The purpose of this
experiment was to determine if there is secular aberration of terrestrial light
with a tilt of aberration of 370 kps.
Because photons are not dragged with the earth, in the time it takes the
laser beam to travel from the laser (i.e. think about the photon hitting the
center of the top of the telescope) to the target (i.e. think about the photon
missing the center of the bottom of the telescope because of the earth's motion
in space), the photons will miss the spot the laser was actually aimed at. Since we don't know exactly where the laser
was aimed, we must do the experiment for 24 hours and use the pattern to
determine where the laser was aimed.
With the photon
theory of light, the markings on the target should have been a nearly perfect
ellipse, just as if the ether theory were assumed without ether drag. With the photon theory, because the photons
do not move with the earth towards Leo, the full effect of secular aberration
should be manifest in the markings on the target.
So what were my
experimental results? Once I got my
equipment completely stabilized, in both laser experiments and telescope
experiments, all 25 markings were essentially the same spot. In other words, I did not get an ellipse, I
got a single dot, with very minor noise.
This amounts to a null result.
This is why I thought I had detected ether drag.
Before going any
further, I now need to talk about "path momentum."
Path Momentum:
Now let us consider
another example of the MTLs. Suppose
there are two parallel train tracks and two trains running
"nose-to-nose" at the same velocity.
Suppose the archer is on one of the train's flatbed cars and that I am
holding a target on a flatbed car on the other train. We are directly across from each other. If the archer shoots his arrow, and if I do not move the target,
it is well known that the arrow will hit the center of the target. However, this success is actually the result
of two offsetting laws.
If the archer were
standing on a stationary platform, and the train the target is on was moving to
the archer's right, the arrow would hit to the left of the target
due to the MTLs. On the other hand, if
the archer was on a moving train and the target were on a platform, the arrow
would hit to the right of the target due to the momentum of the
arrow. But in the case we are discussing,
both the archer and the target are on moving trains, thus the MTLs and momentum
offset each other and the arrow hits the center of the target (this, of course,
assumes no air, etc.). I call the type
of momentum that the arrow has: "path
momentum," to emphasize that the momentum of the arrow affects the
path of the arrow.
Relative to the
archer, the arrow does not leave the bow at an angle because the archer is
moving with the train and he does not see the angle. However, the archer's perspective, as always, is irrelevant
to the MTLs. The MTLs are always
concerned with absolute motion, meaning motion relative to a fixed, unmoving
coordinate system, meaning the ground in this case. Relative to the ground (i.e. if we took a moving picture from a
fixed platform high above the trains, the arrow leaves the bow at an
angle. In other words, the
archer thinks the arrow goes straight, just where he aimed it. But in fact the arrow leaves the bow at an
angle, relative to the ground.
Getting back to my
experiment, there is one difference between using terrestrial light and star
light. With terrestrial light there are
variables we have to deal with concerning the nature of the light source. In other words, the light leaving the laser
may have path momentum, which is something that is irrelevant for
starlight. If photons did not have path
momentum, clearly the pattern I got would have been an ellipse because photons
are not dragged with the motion of the earth.
Thus, if photons exist, because I got a single dot instead of an
ellipse, photons must have path momentum.
In other words,
relative to CMBR (which is our coordinate system in all photon examples), if
photons have path momentum, the photons leave the laser at an angle. If they didn't leave at an angle I would not
have gotten a dot. We would not observe
this angle because we are traveling with the earth, just as the archer above
did not know his arrow left the bow at an angle. Related to path momentum, scientists have shown that photons can
have a small amount of mass.[24]
Thus, what my
experiment demonstrated affects both ether and photons. If ether exists, my experiment proves that
ether drag exists. On the other hand,
if photons exist, my experiment proves that photons have path momentum.
But before anyone
gets comfortable with photons having path momentum, there is another experiment
that needs to be discussed in conjunction with my first experiment. But first, more preliminary train examples.
Path Momentum and the
Photon Theory
In the just mentioned
train example, the arrow was aimed perpendicular to the direction of the train
the archer was on. We will now discuss
what path momentum does if the arrow is aimed parallel to the direction of the
train.
Now let us consider
another arrow example. Suppose there
are two train tracks, obviously parallel to each other, going through two
parallel tunnels under the same bridge or hill. Suppose the two trains are each traveling at 80 kph, but are
going in opposite directions.
Suppose there is an archer on each train and suppose there is a target
half-way between the two tunnels, attached to the outside wall of the bridge
(i.e. the target is fixed and is not moving).
Now suppose that one
train is just getting out of the tunnel and the other train is about to enter
the tunnel and that both flatbed cars that the archers are on are on the same
side of the tunnel, the side that the target is on, but their respective trains
are traveling in opposite directions.
Now suppose that at
the exact instant that both archers are across from each other (meaning they
are exactly the same distance from the target), they both shoot an arrow at the
target with exactly the same bow energy.
Here is the question:
will both arrows arrive at the target at the same instant of time and with the
same velocity? The obvious answer is
"no." The arrow shot from the
train heading into the tunnel will have significantly greater velocity than the
arrow shot from the train heading out of the tunnel.
This difference in
velocity is caused by exactly the same "path momentum" as discussed
above when the two trains were traveling in the same direction. The only difference is that these arrows are
shot parallel to the direction of the trains - one forward and one to the rear.
In exactly the same
way that path momentum applies to arrows, my experiment proves that path
momentum applies to photons. If arrows
or photons have perpendicular path momentum, they also have parallel path
momentum.
My first experiment
proves that photons have path momentum when the laser is shot perpendicular (or
nearly perpendicular) to the direction the earth is headed. It would therefore be ludicrous to assume
that photons do not also have path momentum when the laser or light source is
pointed in a parallel direction to the path of the earth towards Leo.
In a real archer
example, the velocity of the arrow is affected by the velocity of the train the
archer is standing on. In other words,
the motion of the train the archer is on actually causes the
velocity of the arrow to increase. This
is general physics. Because the arrow
leaves the bow at an angle, it must travel further to the target than if both
trains were standing still. Thus, even
though the arrow has to travel further if both trains are in motion (think of
the diagonal of a right triangle), the increased speed of the arrow caused by
the motion of the train the archer is on (i.e. path momentum increases the
speed of the arrow) offsets the increased distance of following the diagonal.
Because I got a dot
(instead of an ellipse), it is clear that the photons traveled along the
diagonal of the triangle. However,
because I got a dot (instead of a smaller ellipse) there is evidence the
photons increased their velocity due to the motion of the earth towards
Leo. In other words, if the photons had
traveled along the hypotenuse or diagonal, but did not increase their velocity
due to the motion of the earth, I still would have gotten an ellipse, but it
would have been much smaller than the original ellipse.
This is all very nice
theory, but in fact my equipment was not accurate enough to guarantee that the
velocity of the photons (assuming the photon theory) did increase. Therefore, I must rest my case on the
general physics of momentum - momentum does increase the velocity of objects.
Thus using general
physics, if we shot laser beams, instead of arrows, at the target attached to
the tunnel wall, and if the trains were traveling at 370 kps (and the earth
were stationary in the universe), the velocity of the photons hitting the
target would be the speed of light, plus or minus 95% of 370 kps (I use 95%
because my most accurate experiment, which used a telescope, was only 95%
accurate). This means that the speed of
light would be c-v and c+v (adjusted by no less than 95% of v, where v is the
velocity of the earth towards Leo).
Again, all of this is discussion is assuming the photon theory. With the ether theory things are totally
different.
The First Major
Paradox in This Book
There are only two ways
to explain why I got a dot:
1) Ether exists and
there is ether drag surrounding the earth (note that the experiment was done
completely inside of our ether drag, thus the laser, the target, and the light
beams would all be dragged together with the ether drag and a dot would be
predicted), or
2) Photons have path
momentum and the speed of photons is c-v and c+v, where v is the velocity of
the earth.
But now there is a
problem with the photon theory. Based
on the c-v and c+v which would result from the path momentum of photons, it is
absolutely clear that the Michelson-Morley Interferometer ("MMI")
should not have received the null result. In other words, my null result proves c-v
and c+v, but that is exactly what Michelson and Morley were looking for! The MMI could have detected differences in
the speed of light well below 30 kps (remember back then they were assuming our
total velocity in space was only 30 kps), but my experiment proves that the
speed of light varies by at least plus or minus 351 kps if
the photon theory is true! In
other words, the velocity of light must be 300,000 kps plus or minus 95% of 370
kps, meaning 300,000 kps plus or minus 351 kps, if the photon theory is
true. The MMI, and numerous
interferometers build since then, could easily have detected such a vast
difference in the speed of light.
The MMI experiment
(and many other interferometers), which deal with the speed of light
(which are looking for c-v and c+v), and my experiments, which
deal with the path of light (which prove c-v and
c+v), meaning the MTLs, could not both have gotten null results if the photon
theory were true. If photons have path
momentum, then the MMI should not have gotten a null result. But if photons do not have path momentum,
then my experiment should not have gotten a null result.
But both experiments
could have gotten null results with the ether drag theory because both the
speed of light and the path of light are relatively constant within the ether
drag (the speed of light would only be affected by our earth's rotation speed).
There are other
experiments that need to be mentioned.
The Sagnac effect proves that the velocity of light on the surface of
the earth is c-v and c+v, but in this case v is not the total
velocity of our earth through space, but it is the rotation
velocity of the earth at the latitude of the experiment. In other words, the Sagnac effect, the
Michelson-Gale and Pearson experiment, discussed in Chapter 1, and the
Hafele-Keating experiment, also discussed in Chapter 1, have all detected the
ether wind being equal to the rotation velocity of the earth! This should be a clear signal that ether and
ether drag exist. Now we will move on
to my second experiment.