Isotropic and anisotropic propagation of light

[Aether]

Aether,
I promise a turnaround of 1 day. If it is correct, I will say so. If it is wrong, you know by now that I can spot errors very fast.

I know that you have some good skills, better than mine in some areas, but your attitude isn't scientific; at least not the attitude that you have projected here so far, IMHO.

 

[clj4]

I know that you have some good skills, better than mine in some areas, but your attitude isn't scientific; at least not the attitude that you have projected here so far, IMHO.

Come on, Aether

What do you have to loose? I can spot errors in a matter of minutes. I might end up saving you a lot of time and money. And, if the paper is correct, I will say so. I don't play games.

 

[clj4]

I know that you have some good skills, better than mine in some areas, but your attitude isn't scientific; at least not the attitude that you have projected here so far, IMHO.

haven't you already submitted it at arxiv? This is what you told us earlier. Just point us to the correct paper, would you?

 

[Aether]

haven't you already submitted it at arxiv? This is what you told us earlier. Just point us to the correct paper, would you?

This is not what I told you earlier. My paper isn't on arxiv.

 

[clj4]

This is not what I told you earlier. My paper isn't on arxiv.

Hmmm

hard to know what to believe in what you are saying. Here is your own post in this thread, post 61:

I wrote a paper on this subject last year and showed it to Reg Cahill. He made some suggestions, and after I addressed those within the paper he personally endorsed me at arxiv.org to post papers there. The paper discusses an experiment that I am preparing to carry out myself, and I'll post it when I have some definitive results.

Now, you and I both know that M-M experiments are two-way experiments, right? So why are you connecting this subject to one-way experiments?

Are you saying you haven't posted it at arxiv yet?

 

[quantumdude]

Are you saying you haven't posted it at arxiv yet?

I wrote a paper on this subject last year and showed it to Reg Cahill. He made some suggestions, and after I addressed those within the paper he personally endorsed me at arxiv.org to post papers there. The paper discusses an experiment that I am preparing to carry out myself, and I'll post it when I have some definitive results.

See it now?

 

[wisp]

So for the benefit of all, can anyone explain in plain English explain what the difference are between the two statements: -

1) Experiments that measure variations in the one-way speed of light
2) Experiments that measure anisotropy in the one-way speed of light.

I’ll explain it as best I can, as nobody seems up for the challenge or you don’t think it important – correct me if you think I’m wrong.

1) Experiments that measure variations in the one-way speed of light are not possible according to Einstein (and Aether, and others). Consequently no one has carried out a simple one-way experiment using a laser, a start clock and stop clock, because of the issue of synchronizing clocks.

2) Experiments that measure anisotropy in the one-way speed of light are the norm in mainstream physics. Because the coordinate system used is isotropic, light always has the same velocity in all directions, and so there is no need to actually measure the one-way light speed, as it should always be constant.

I believe a simple one-way experiment using a laser and two clocks is possible. And it is possible to correctly synchronize clocks. Results will prove beyond any doubt that the speed of light one-way will vary by +/-V.

The Krisher et al test for anisotropy refers to the cosmic microwave radiation (CMR) frame. There is always a null result in this frame, and it could even be the ether frame, so the test proves nothing. What we really need to know is what is the anisotropy for the Earth frame. If the result for the Earth frame is positive then the whole concept of an isotropic coordinate system is void, and consequently relativity fails.

 

[Ich]

You can synchronize clocks using slow transport and then measure c. This has been done, the constancy of c has been verified. That is a nontrivial result. There could be variation (as in emitter theory, caused by the speed of the light source) or anisotropy (as in early aether theories).
You can´t measure the one way speed only if you doubt that slow transport preserves synchronisation. At the same time you must doubt the validity of Newtonian mechanics in your reference frame, knowing that it would still work if you only had defined your frame reasonably.

 

[clj4]

I’ll explain it as best I can, as nobody seems up for the challenge or you don’t think it important – correct me if you think I’m wrong.

1) Experiments that measure variations in the one-way speed of light are not possible according to Einstein (and Aether, and others). Consequently no one has carried out a simple one-way experiment using a laser, a start clock and stop clock, because of the issue of synchronizing clocks.

2) Experiments that measure anisotropy in the one-way speed of light are the norm in mainstream physics. Because the coordinate system used is isotropic, light always has the same velocity in all directions, and so there is no need to actually measure the one-way light speed, as it should always be constant.

I believe a simple one-way experiment using a laser and two clocks is possible. And it is possible to correctly synchronize clocks. Results will prove beyond any doubt that the speed of light one-way will vary by +/-V.

The Krisher et al test for anisotropy refers to the cosmic microwave radiation (CMR) frame. There is always a null result in this frame, and it could even be the ether frame, so the test proves nothing. What we really need to know is what is the anisotropy for the Earth frame. If the result for the Earth frame is positive then the whole concept of an isotropic coordinate system is void, and consequently relativity fails.

No one is listening to your babbling , wisp.

 

[Aether]

In a nutshell, after hundreds of posts "Aether"+the two sock puppets on one side and I on the other side have agreed that (see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=953407&postcount=394) the correct wave vector in the Gagnon experiment is linearly dependent on the Earth composite speed (orbital and rotational) as in :

k(v_z,\omega)=\frac{v_z}{c}*\frac{\omega}{c}+... (1)

In SR, the term in v_z does not exist. IN GGT (an aether theory derived from the Mansouri-Sexl theory), the term in v_z is present.

What followed in the BAUT ("Against the Mainstream"!) forum was a disagreement as to whether one could extract the quantity (k+k')L/2 from the two waves of the form :
A*cos(kL-\omega*t) and respectively A*cos(k'L-\omega*t)
There are at least 3 ways to do exactly that : extract (k+k')L/2 . I am sure that there are more. The quantity (k+k')L/2, being dependent of v_z gives an excellent tool for separating the SR predictions from the GGT (MS) predictions and from the experimental measurements that agree with SR and disagree with GGT. ("Aether" insists on using the term (k-k')L/2 that is obviously independent of v_z)

I was thinking about ordering a beamsplitter cube for an optical interferometer today, and was reminded of a loose-end still dangling from this discussion. The RF interferometer described in the Gagnon paper measures the difference between two signal phases (k-k')L/2, but optical interferometers typically measure the sum of two signal phases (k+k')L/2.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723272&postcount=82" you said that:

1. According to the Gagnon experiment (and any standard wave experiment) the authors measure:

Acos (kz-wt)-Acos(k'z-wt)

This quantity vanishes when k=k', and this is always the case in this experiment (see eq. (1) above) for parallel waveguides at rest wrt one another.

 

[clj4]

I was thinking about ordering a beamsplitter cube for an optical interferometer today, and was reminded of a loose-end still dangling from this discussion. The RF interferometer described in the Gagnon paper measures the difference between two signal phases (k-k')L/2, but optical interferometers typically measure the sum of two signal phases (k+k')L/2. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723272&postcount=82" you said that:

This quantity vanishes when k=k', and this is always the case in this experiment (see eq. (1) above) for parallel waveguides at rest wrt one another.

Last gasp try, aren't you? Just the way one can arrange to add two waves one can arrange to subtract them, it is good that you finally came to terms with the idea.
Now, the next thing for you to get is that k and k' are NOT equal. In order to figure that you would need to think a lot harder as to what the term "..." represents in eq.1. (Hint, it is a square root of TWO DIFFERENT quantities for k and k' respectively).

 

[Aether]

Last gasp try, aren't you? Just the way one can arrange to add two waves one can arrange to subtract them. Exercise: figure out how to do that.

You already stipulated that subtraction of the two waves gives a result "that is obviously independent of v_z", so now we're considering your proposal to measure the sum of the two signal phases. The result vanishes when k=k'. Is there anything else to consider?

 

[Aether]

Now, the next thing for you to get is that k and k' are NOT equal. In order to figure that you would need to think a lot harder as to what the term "..." represents in eq.1. (Hint, it is a square root of TWO DIFFERENT quantities for k and k' respectively).

Ok, so we agree that by your abbreviated eq. (1) the summing of the signals always yields a null result. Please state the full form of eq. (1) then.

 

[clj4]

Ok, so we agree that by your abbreviated eq. (1) the summing of the signals always yields a null result. Please state the full form of eq. (1) then.

Oh, you always try to twist things.
1. I maintained and maintain that you need to SUBTRACT the WAVEFORMS (which translates into ADDING the phases), so please refrain from your standard diversions.

2. The term that follows in eq. 1 is

sqrt (omega^2-omega_mn^2) for k

sqrt (omega^2-omega_pq^2) for k'

Happy now?

 

[Aether]

2. The term that follows in eq. 1 is

sqrt (omega^2-omega_mn^2) for k

sqrt (omega^2-omega_pq^2) for k'

Happy now?

Please show how SR and GGT make different predictions (from one another) when these terms are included in eq. (1).

 

[clj4]

Please show how SR and GGT make different predictions (from one another) when these terms are included in eq. (1).

I did that , over hundreds of posts. Remember, I rewrote the whole damn theory of the Gagnon experiment.
So we arrived together to the last issue: the subtraction of waveforms vs. the addition. You just accepted that waveforms can be SUBTRACTED (duh! high school stuff) therefore resulting into the ADDITION of phases. (something that you argued over tens of posts). Now you want to start over from the beginning? One last gasp diversion? Just go over the posts, it is all there, readily calculated for you.

Now, if you are really serious about re-enacting Gagnon, I can supply these calculations. Actually I can post them on this website.

And, BTW, since we last talked, 3-4 more papers on experimental disproofs of light speed anisotropy have been published in Physical Reviews. So,things look grim(mer) for the "aether" theories. I can supply the new papers to be added to your homework. You need to refute all of them in order to prove your point. In 5 months you haven't refuted even one.

 

[Aether]

So we arrived together to the last issue: the subtraction of waveforms vs. the addition. You just accepted that waveforms can be SUBTRACTED (duh! high school stuff) therefore resulting into the ADDITION of phases. (something that you argued over tens of posts).

I simulated the addition of two sine waves using the new Eq. 7 and changing values of v_z, and the amplitude of the composite sine wave is invariant over changes of v_z.

Now, if you are really serious about re-enacting Gagnon, I can supply these calculations. Actually I can post them on this website.

I'm not planning on re-enacting the Gagnon experiment, but I would do it if a plausible calculation showed that there might be an interesting result. The instrument that I'm building is for the gas-mode interferometry experiment.

And, BTW, since we last talked, 3-4 more papers on experimental disproofs of light speed anisotropy have been published in Physical Reviews. So,things look grim(mer) for the "aether" theories. I can supply the new papers to be added to your homework. You need to refute all of them in order to prove your point. In 5 months you haven't refuted even one.

Measurments of two-way light speed anisotropy are fine. Both GGT and SR predict the same outcome for two-way experiments. It is only claims of coordinate-system independent one-way speed/anisotropy measurements that are at issue here.

 

[clj4]

I simulated the addition of two sine waves using the new Eq. 7 and changing values of v_z, and the amplitude of the composite sine wave is invariant over changes of v_z.

Try reading and comprehending:

"So we arrived together to the last issue: the SUBTRACTION of waveforms vs. the addition. You just accepted that waveforms can be SUBTRACTED (duh! high school stuff) therefore resulting into the ADDITION of phases. (something that you argued over tens of posts). Now you want to start over from the beginning? One last gasp diversion? Just go over the posts, it is all there, readily calculated for you."

Try SUBTRACTION, ok?

I'm not planning on re-enacting the Gagnon experiment, but I would do it if a plausible calculation showed that there might be an interesting result. The instrument that I'm building is for the gas-mode interferometry experiment.

You are wasting your time, independent of each other Consoli and Cahill published already on this subject. Both Cahill (a wll known antirelativist) and Consoli ( a well known "aetherist") seem ignorant of the fact that the experiments have been run already, about 30-40 years ago. Guess the result?

Measurments of two-way light speed anisotropy are fine. Both GGT and SR predict the same outcome for two-way experiments. It is only claims of coordinate-system independent one-way speed/anisotropy measurements that are at issue here.

From the other thread, in the unlikely case you missed it:

"It has been explained to you numerous times (quite a few times in this thread) that the formalisms employed in describing the theory have no bearing on the outcome of the experiments as long as the formalisms are valid and equivalent.
You keep trying to cancel out valid experiments based on the formalism (coordinate dependent vs. independent) used in describing the theories. When you made the feeblest attempt at calculating anything you failed miserably, if you are so convinced that you are right, please rewrite the theory of any of the papers below in your formalism of choice and see what you get."
1. C.M.Will “Clock Synchronization and isotropy of one-way speed of light”, Phys.Rev. D, 45, 2 (1992)

2. D.R.Gagnon, D.G.Torr, P.T.Kolen, T.Chang “Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light”, Phys.Rev. A, 38, 4 (1988)

3. T.Chang , “Maxwell’s equations in anisotropic space”, Phys.Lett, 70A, 1 (1979)

4. T.Krisher, L.Maleki, G.Lutes, L.Primas, R.Logan, J.Anderson, C.Will, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 2, (1990)

5. S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchuk, H. Müller, A. Peters: "Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005)

6. T. Chang, D. Torr, “Dual properties of spacetime under an alternative Lorentz transformation”, Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4, (1988)

7. T.Chang, D.Torr, D.Gagnon, “A modified Lorentz theory as a test theory of special relativity”, ”, Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4, (1988)

8. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

9. Lipa, J. A., Nissen, J. A., Wang, S., Stricker, D. A., and Avaloff, D. “A New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 060403 (2003)

10. Wolf, P., Bize, S., Clairon, A., Santarelli, G., Tobar, M. E., and Luiten, A. N. “Improved Test of Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics” Phys. Rev. D 70, 051902(R) (2004)

 

[Aether]

Try reading and comprehending:

"So we arrived together to the last issue: the SUBTRACTION of waveforms vs. the addition. You just accepted that waveforms can be SUBTRACTED (duh! high school stuff) therefore resulting into the ADDITION of phases. (something that you argued over tens of posts). Now you want to start over from the beginning? One last gasp diversion? Just go over the posts, it is all there, readily calculated for you."

Try SUBTRACTION, ok?

I simulated both the addition and subtraction of two sine waves and the amplitude of the composite wave is invariant over changes in v_z. I can show you the source code of the simulation if you want.

You are wasting your time, independent of each other Consoli and Cahill published already on this subject. Both Cahill (a wll known antirelativist) and Consoli ( a well known "aetherist") seem ignorant of the fact that the experiments have been run already, about 30-40 years ago. Guess the result?

Cahill stipulated in at least one of his papers that neither solid nor fluid refractive media yield an interesting result. It is specifically gas-mode interferometry that is to be tested. Do you know of any paper that specifically rules out an effect in gas-mode? The only reason that I'm doing the experiment is that I couldn't find any such reference.

From the other thread, in the unlikely case you missed it:

"It has been explained to you numerous times (quite a few times in this thread) that the formalisms employed in describing the theory have no bearing on the outcome of the experiments as long as the formalisms are valid and equivalent.
You keep trying to cancel out valid experiments based on the formalism (coordinate dependent vs. independent) used in describing the theories. When you made the feeblest attempt at calculating anything you failed miserably, if you are so convinced that you are right, please rewrite the theory of any of the papers below in your formalism of choice and see what you get."

1. C.M.Will “Clock Synchronization and isotropy of one-way speed of light”, Phys.Rev. D, 45, 2 (1992)

2. D.R.Gagnon, D.G.Torr, P.T.Kolen, T.Chang “Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light”, Phys.Rev. A, 38, 4 (1988)

3. T.Chang , “Maxwell’s equations in anisotropic space”, Phys.Lett, 70A, 1 (1979)

4. T.Krisher, L.Maleki, G.Lutes, L.Primas, R.Logan, J.Anderson, C.Will, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 2, (1990)

5. S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchuk, H. Müller, A. Peters: "Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005)

6. T. Chang, D. Torr, “Dual properties of spacetime under an alternative Lorentz transformation”, Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4, (1988)

7. T.Chang, D.Torr, D.Gagnon, “A modified Lorentz theory as a test theory of special relativity”, ”, Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4, (1988)

8. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

9. Lipa, J. A., Nissen, J. A., Wang, S., Stricker, D. A., and Avaloff, D. “A New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 060403 (2003)

10. Wolf, P., Bize, S., Clairon, A., Santarelli, G., Tobar, M. E., and Luiten, A. N. “Improved Test of Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics” Phys. Rev. D 70, 051902(R) (2004)

I will consider these papers only if 1) you will agree to answer direct questions, or 2) you can get either Hurkyl, pervect, JesseM, gregory, or coalquay404 to second your motion (e.g., to agree with you that they are relevant and support your claims).

 

[clj4]

I simulated both the addition and subtraction of two sine waves and the amplitude of the composite wave is invariant over changes in v_z. I can show you the source code of the simulation if you want.

That's because you are working of Gagnon formula no (7) which is wrong. I corrected it by solving the correct partial differential equations. So you wasted your time "simulating" the wrong thing.

Cahill stipulated in at least one of his papers that neither solid nor fluid refractive media yield an interesting result. It is specifically gas-mode interferometry that is to be tested. Do you know of any paper that specifically rules out an effect in gas-mode? The only reason that I'm doing the experiment is that I couldn't find any such reference.

In his paper , Cahill shows that he has no clue in applying relativity correctly for linterferometers immersed in a refractive medium, WHATEVER THE MEDIUM. So his remark is pure nonsense. He makes a mistake right at the beginning of his paper and it goes downhill from there. He published in 2003 but he never went back to actually run the experiment, wonder why?. Either way, the point is moot, this type of experiment had already been run (about 40 years ago), guess the result?

I will consider these papers only if 1) you will agree to answer direct questions, or 2) you can get either Hurkyl, pervect, JesseM, gregory, or coalquay404 to second your motion (e.g., to agree with you that they are relevant).

Gregory? Your "sock puppet" sidekick? He's been suspended for ethics violations, remember?

Anyway, the papers of Cahill and Consoli are both IRRELEVANT. If you read carefully my post you would have noticed that :

-Cahill and Consoli never ran anything (pretty much like you)
-Both Cahill and Consoli made calculation errors in their respective papers (pretty much...)
-Finally and most importantly some competent people have already run this type of experiments some 40 years ago and...guess the results

This is why I said that you are wasting your time.

 

[Aether]

That's because you are working of Gagnon formula no (7) which is wrong. I corrected it by solving the correct partial differential equations. So you wasted your time "simulating" the wrong thing.

Here are the equations that I used (they are in c-code):
k_0=-(omega/c_0)*(v_z/c_0)+powl(omega*omega-omega_mn*omega_mn,0.5)/c_0;
k_1=-(omega/c_0)*(v_z/c_0)+powl(omega*omega-omega_pq*omega_pq,0.5)/c_0;

O_0=A*cos(k_0*z-omega*t);
O_1=A*cos(k_1*z-omega*t);

In his paper , Cahill shows that he has no clue in applying relativity correctly for linterferometers immersed in a refractive medium, WHATEVER THE MEDIUM. So his remark is pure nonsense. He makes a mistake right at the beginning of his paper and it goes downhill from there. He published in 2003 but he never went back to actually run the experiment, wonder why?. Either way, the point is moot, this type of experiment had already been run (about 40 years ago), guess the result?

Please cite an experiment that has already been run in gas-mode.

 

[clj4]

Here are the equations that I used (they are in c-code):
k_0=-(omega/c_0)*(v_z/c_0)+powl(omega*omega-omega_mn*omega_mn,0.5)/c_0;
k_1=-(omega/c_0)*(v_z/c_0)+powl(omega*omega-omega_pq*omega_pq,0.5)/c_0;

O_0=A*cos(k_0*z-omega*t);
O_1=A*cos(k_1*z-omega*t);

Yes, they are the result of solving the partial differential equation incorrectly, remember? We have run hundreds of posts on this subject.
As such, they are wrong. You'll need to find the correct ones on your own.

Please cite an experiment that has already been run in gas-mode.

You don't understand, do you? You found a new antirelativist to follow, mr. Cahill. All materials behave the same, so gas, perspex, glass are one and the same thing. So Cahill's "gas-mode" is a red herring. And you are wasting your time. Can you figure out the error in Cahill's "analysis"? (Hint: he doesn't know relativity)

 

[Aether]

Yes, they are the result of solving the partial differential equation incorrectly, remember? We have run hundreds of posts on this subject.
As such, they are wrong. You'll need to find the correct ones on your own.

If these aren't the equations that you are referring to, then please show me the ones that you are referring to.

 

[clj4]

If these aren't the equations that you are referring to, then please show me the ones that you are referring to.

You'll need to find the correct ones on your own.

 

[Aether]

If these aren't the equations that you are referring to, then please show me the ones that you are referring to.

You'll need to find the correct ones on your own.

The Gagnon et al paper stands as both recanted by at least three of the original four authors, and thoroughly refuted here by gregory and myself. Unless there is an objection by someone other than you clj4, then your claims are dismissed by unanimous consent; the other references that you cite but refuse to answer direct questions about do not appear to support your case and they are dismissed; and the equations that you refer to but refuse to write out are dismissed.

 

[clj4]

The Gagnon et al paper stands as both recanted by at least three of the original four authors, and thoroughly refuted here by gregory and myself. Unless there is an objection by someone other than you clj4, then your claims are dismissed by unanimous consent; the other references that you cite but refuse to answer direct questions about do not appear to support your case and they are dismissed; and the equations that you refer to but refuse to write out are dismissed.

You tried this before about three times: "unanimous consent" is you and a "sock puppet" that has long been banned for unethical behavior (BTW, he couldn't write a correct equation either). It doesn't make your claims right-it just makes them ridiculous.
You (as everyone else) can read the papers on the subject matter: the experiments refute the idea of light speed anisotropy. Since you have an ax to grind (the papers seem to refute your own flavor of "aether" theory), you obviously cannot be objective. I explained the papers to you, numerous times, the fact that refuse the obvious doesn't make the papers go away. There are plenty others that can make up their minds on their own, this is why I put up the papers. Your biased opinion doesn't change the truth.

I offered to give you the Gagnon equations but seeing the arrogance with which you dismiss the work of others (in the context of your being unable to write even one equation right) as well as your disrespect for peer refereed papers I decided not to, just to make you work a little such that you learn respect.

 

[Aether]

You tried this before about three times: "unanimous consent" is you and a "sock puppet" that has long been banned for unethical behavior (BTW, he couldn't write a correct equation either). It doesn't make your claims right-it just makes them ridiculous.

Unanimous consent automatically includes everyone who has read and understood these posts and does not object.

You (as everyone else) can read the papers on the subject matter: the experiments refute the idea of light speed anisotropy. Since you have an ax to grind (the papers seem to refute your own flavor of "aether" theory), you obviously cannot be objective. I explained the papers to you, numerous times, the fact that refuse the obvious doesn't make the papers go away. There are plenty others that can make up their minds on their own, this is why I put up the papers. Your biased opinion doesn't change the truth.

Everyone who has read and understood our discussion and does not object has implicitly agreed to the dismissal of your claims by unanimous consent.

I offered to give you the Gagnon equations but seeing the arrogance with which you dismiss the work of others (in the context of your being unable to write even one equation right) as well as your disrespect for peer refereed papers I decided not to, just to make you work a little such that you learn respect.

Your claims are dismissed by everyone here who has read and understood this discussion and hasn't objected, not only me. You do not have the right to make claims or cite references and then refuse to answer direct questions about them or refuse to write-out equations that you yourself are proposing.

The only thing that I think some people here would probably agree with you about is the gas-mode interferometry issue, so that is not dismissed.

 

[clj4]

Unanimous consent automatically includes everyone who has read and understood these posts and does not object.

Everyone who has read and understood our discussion and does not object has implicitly agreed to the dismissal of your claims by unanimous consent.

Your claims are dismissed by everyone here who has read and understood this discussion and hasn't objected, not only me. You do not have the right to make claims or cite references and then refuse to answer direct questions about them or refuse to write-out equations that you yourself are proposing.

The only thing that I think some people here would probably agree with you about is the gas-mode interferometry issue, so that is not dismissed.

Get off your high horse, you don't have the background to dismiss anything and anybody , no matter how much you try (non scientific prose doesn't count, neither the "legalise" tone that you assume from time to time).
I explained to you things over hundreds of posts (equations included).The fact that you continue to deny the obvious is your problem: the number of experiments that refute the light speed anisotropy is going to increase over time so you will face more and more of them.
The fact that you are in denial doesn't change anything.
Tell you what, I'll send the Gagnon corrected equations to ZapperZ and DocAl (under the condition not to give them to you until you have made a few honest attempts to calculate things yourself and you showed us your work - not the one of some "sock puppet"). This should cure you of your arrogance and disrespect. OK?

 

[Aether]

Tell you what, I'll send the Gagnon corrected equations to ZapperZ and DocAl (under the condition not to give them to you until you have made a few honest attempts to calculate things yourself and you showed us your work - not the one of some "sock puppet"). This should cure you of your arrogance and disrespect. OK?

If you can get either one of them to agree with you that I need curing of my arrogance and disrespect, then ok. Otherwise, you will show your equations so that I can test them with the program that I wrote, ok?

 

[clj4]

If you can get either one of them to agree with you that I need curing of my arrogance and disrespect, then ok. Otherwise, you will show your equations so that I can test them with the program that I wrote, ok?

Looks like your "simulation" program is all messed up. Here are the calculations for the case that you listed above in post #111, they show very clearly the phase dependency on v_z. Are you still having difficulties with elementary calculations? Better check that program of yours.