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.
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. 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."
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.
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.