MM experiment null result is not an accurate claim

[Michaeltannoury]

Maybe i am getting it wrong . Please correct my logic where i am mistaken: 

 

The  hypothesis A "of the existence of the ether " is negated by the following contradiction AA : " the Earth's motion is detectable in one reference frame (proof shown in to aberration)  and not detectable in the other (on earth  frame as not detected in MM)" 

However 

The hypothesis  B  "of the absence of the ether"  is not negated by the following contradiction BB: " At low velocities (far from C) object velocities are relative one to the other  (can be added or subtracted according to direction of motion) but at high velocities (close to C)  measurements of velocities is the same in all directions  (velocities become absolute and independent from relative positions or directions of motion ) and is approximately equal to C.

 

Question 1:

Why in one hypothesis contradictory experiment results ( such as in the relative addition of velocities between light photons and other projectile )  can be accepted while in the other similar contradictions ( in the relative motion of earth to a medium at local reference frame or at distant one ) are not accepted  ? 

 

Question 2:

The existence of mathematical formula (Lorentz transformation) will definitely explains the contradiction BB because  it's development is already based on the fact that light photon is some kind of a projectile moving with a unique velocity in all reference frames (which is a contradiction to logical additions of velocities). 

This formula  is considered as  a proof of  the validity of B.

What if now someone proposed a mathematical formula that  is based on the contradiction AA.  like some formula that can give different results according to the distance of the frame of reference (local frame or micro relative distances vs distant frame or macro relative distance ) 

such a formula would definitely explains AA.  Would that be a proof for  hypothesis A? 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Michaeltannoury

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Michaeltannoury said:

The hypothesis  B  "of the absence of the ether"  is not negated by the following contradiction BB: " At low velocities (far from C) object velocities are relative one to the other  (can be added or subtracted according to direction of motion) but at high velocities (close to C)  measurements of velocities is the same in all directions  (becomes absolute and independent from from relative positions or directions of motion ) and is approximately equal to C.

That is not a contradiction. You can, of course, use the correct velocity addition formula at low velocities. It is just unnecessary unless you are really concerned that the relative speed of two vehicles at 30MPH is 60.0000...00001 instead of 60.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

Maybe i am getting it wrong . Please correct my logic where i am mistaken: 

 

The  hypothesis A "of the existence of the ether " is negated by the following contradiction AA : " the Earth's motion is detectable in one reference frame (proof shown in to aberration)  and not detectable in the other (on earth  frame as not detected in MM)" 

No, that's not accurate. It's the same reference frame: on earth. The contradiction is that two independent ways of measuring the speed, while consistent with the aether hypothesis, disagree with each other.

3 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

However 

The hypothesis  B  "of the absence of the ether"  is not negated by the following contradiction BB: " At low velocities (far from C) object velocities are relative one to the other  (can be added or subtracted according to direction of motion) but at high velocities (close to C)  measurements of velocities is the same in all directions  (velocities become absolute and independent from relative positions or directions of motion ) and is approximately equal to C.

That's also not an accurate depiction of the observations. Both cases are consistent with the relativistic velocity addition formula. Velocities do not become independent of motion at high speeds. Only objects moving at c would have an invariant speed.

3 hours ago, Michaeltannoury said:

Question 1:

Why in one hypothesis contradictory experiment results ( such as in the relative addition of velocities between light photons and other projectile )  can be accepted while in the other similar contradictions ( in the relative motion of earth to a medium at local reference frame or at distant one ) are not accepted  ? 

Your questions are moot, since you have not properly represented the situation.