M&M calc?

[imatfaal]

I disagree. I think the subjunctive / irrealis mode is appropriate here.

 

Exactly. I didn't know the term irrealis mode / mood - interesting article on Wikipedia. The Subjunctive was my aim; but, after reading the WikiWiki, I realise I would like to include certain hints of the Desiderative and Hortative moods in the phrase as well.

[swansont]

 

 

Oh, very good. I guessed 0 (because why else would you ask...)

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp

 

 

But the fact that there are failures means it's not zero.

[CharonY]

Am I the only one who thought that a thread called "M&M calc?" was going to be about the probability of pulling multi coloured sweets out of a bag?

 

Nope. That was the precise reason why I clicked on the thread. Then forgot about it. Then clicked on it again.

[Strange]

 

 

But the fact that there are failures means it's not zero.

 

 

And that is why you are world famous physicist and I am just some guy on the Internet.

 

Nope. That was the precise reason why I clicked on the thread. Then forgot about it. Then clicked on it again.

 

Mmmm. Chocolate ...

[swansont]

And that is why you are world famous physicist and I am just some guy on the Internet.

 

 

Hardly famous, much less world famous. Some folks from outside the US know me, though, and there are some who remember meeting me at other/earlier conferences. (I am of Nobel blood, though, like some of my colleagues)

[Capiert]

The significance of the M&M experiment is:

1.

"no difference" (of delay)

between both paths;

2.

no drag (of the ether);

3.

wave_length measurement (ability).

4.

However, non_existence

of the ether

can NOT be confirmed

(with such a forth & back experiment;

5.

thus confirming Maxwell;

6.

NOT Michelson).

 

7.

Don't you find it peculiar

that we can measure a "wave's" length?

 

8.

E.g. On what does a (moving) wave exist?

..if not the movement of some "thing".

 

9.

A naive person would ignore that question.

 

10.

Michelson fudged the angles on the 2nd path,

i.e.

a (=one) 90 degrees is missing,

& everybody is happy with that.

Nobody is interested.

[Strange]

The significance of the M&M experiment is:

1.

"no difference" (of delay)

between both paths;

2.

no drag (of the ether);

 

 

Actually, the MM experiment falsified a static aether. Other experiments disprove a dragged aether.

 

 

 

Don't you find it peculiar

that we can measure a "wave's" length?

 

Not really. You can do it yourself with some chocolate and a microwave oven:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/theres-easy-and-tasty-way-measure-speed-light-home-180952245/

 

 

 

E.g. On what does a (moving) wave exist?

 

The electromagnetic field.

 

 

 

Michelson fudged the angles on the 2nd path,

i.e.

a (=one) 90 degrees is missing,

& everybody is happy with that.

Nobody is interested.

 

Why would anyone care about a relatively inaccurate experiment done over 100 years ago?

 

Why not look at the thousands of experiments done since then, which are far, far more accurate?

[Capiert]

Actually, the MM experiment falsified a static aether.

Please explain.

Does that mean you know the calculations are corrupt?

 

Other experiments disprove a dragged aether.

?

A few comments might go quicker.

 

Thanks for the yummy link.

What disturbs me is they "rotated" the rope

to get those "waves?"

E.g. Cyclic motion instead of propagation.

 

The electromagnetic field.

What's that?

I only know charge_density (charges/volume)

& that its number can change wrt position.

If someone says field,

my mind goes blank

& I think of grass, hay field (area).

 

Why would anyone care about a relatively inaccurate experiment done over 100 years ago?

Probably because that's where & when the rumour began.

We've got to start somewhere,

pack it at its roots.

Michelson made the suggestion:

Maybe no ether.

The weak followed it (easily hypnotized?),

the rest followed them without hypnosis (maybe?), simply obeying.

There is enough accuracy

to get a good idea of how things should be +/-1% error.

Accuracy today should confirm (=show, for sure) what they were doing,

(with the advantage

that we can find out what they did) right & wrong.

 

Why not look at the thousands of experiments done since then, which are far, far more accurate?

Why more experiments, for more accuracy, when the experiment is wrong?

The more accurate link you gave me earlier, #2, maintains the same wrong geometry.

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml

The dotted line path is wrong,

& the incident ray should land (hitting perpendicularly, straight up) at C

(instead of diagonally to the right at C'),

but to do that the mirror C must be much longer to the left

(not even a millimeter experimentally),

(in order to advance (to the) right to the C' position

while getting hit perpendicularly at C).

Is that clear for you?

The reflection at C is based on a (circular) Huygens wavefront.

The incident angle is 90 degrees,

but the reflected angle is double the professor's.

E.g. Michelson allowed himself half of that (correct angle)

split onto both angles, which is wrong,

because 90 degrees (incident) does not exist (in his sketch)

although his experiment is so (=90 degrees, even while moving).

Most calculations don't use Huygen's principle

& so they get the wrong answer.

 

OK, but that's the (decisive) question. What's the point of more experimental accuracy,

when such a (bidirectional) experiment is NOT even capable of producing a difference between paths,

NOT to mention anything else (like ether relevance).

I.e. Because both paths have "identical" lengths,

it's simply the wrong type of experiment.

Michelson (ignored that) went on & continued

as though that wasn't important. (That's stupidity.)

Anybody doing that today is also on the wrong trail,

(&) I don't care how (experimentally) accurate they can be,

they won't find it with that method.

It's just as stupid.

We need (to do) something that will solve the problem;

NOT repeat the same mistake

with greater accuracy.

Michelson stated the (stationary ether) hypothesis is erroneous

1881 pg 128,

but in fact his (own) hypothesis is erroneous.

He interpreted the displacement as zero (that's correct,

but he should have concluded that).

Instead he concluded the results of the hypothesis are wrong;

instead of only concluding the displacement is zero,

& interpreting the hypothesis wrong.

In 1887 he questioned whether a difference is measurable or exists.

His conclusion should have been, a difference does NOT exist.

Maxwell is right, I can NOT measure the earth speed in the ether,

as Maxwell said.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

Please explain.

The MM experiment was designed to test the movement of the Earth through the aether which implies that the aether is static (or at least, not moving along with the Earth). It found no such movement. More accurate experiments since have confirmed this.

 

 

 

What's that?

I only know charge_density (charges/volume)

& that its number can change wrt position.

If someone says field,

my mind goes blank

& I think of grass, hay field (area).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

 

 

 

The weak followed it (easily hypnotized?),

 

I will ignore the rest of that garbage.

 

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

[swansont]

The MM experiment was designed to test the movement of the Earth through the aether which implies that the aether is static (or at least, not moving along with the Earth).

 

 

 

And, to head off any nonsense here, the reason they were looking for our speed through the static aether was that stellar aberration showed we could not be at rest with respect to an aether.

[Mordred]

Am I the only one who thought that a thread called "M&M calc?" was going to be about the probability of pulling multi coloured sweets out of a bag?

I thought we were going to estimate the number of M$M's we could fit in a bag lol.

 

Strange and Swansont have already raised the key points.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Capiert]

Thanks for the links Strange

The MM experiment was designed to test the movement of the Earth through the aether which implies that the aether is static (or at least, not moving along with the Earth).

The experiment was NOT designed correctly,

thus failed its purpose,

which can be expected

(for such a folly).

 

Michelson's math (geometry) would NOT even work for water (waves).

(Why then light?)

It found no such movement.

You mean time_delay "differences".

Other (more accurate) experiments have confirmed Michelson's folly.

More accurate experiments since have confirmed this.

They only repeated the same non_sense, unfortunately.

 

The experiment calculation attempted to compare time delay

between the 2 different paths,

that was intended to calculate earth's speed thru the ether.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

Thanks for the links Strange.

 

And, to head off any nonsense here, the reason they were looking for our speed through the static aether was that stellar aberration showed we could not be at rest with respect to an aether.

Yes I wanted to save that for the end, because it(s confusion) disturbed me from the beginning.

Peculiar ideas that don't fit together in my head although you are happy with them,

they don't always make sense to me.

I can't say anything about light's speed in a medium, but you all do (claim you can).

But I wonder if you've measured it, in various mediums?

For me abberation is a surface effect caused by the change in density.

The angle changes as the momentum is transferred to a different mass (rotating?, molecule or atom?) thus does not make a complete cycle in the same period T=1/f inverse frequency

if the next mass is a different value.

I haven't seen any experiments measuring light's speed in different mediums directly,

e.g. without using refractive indexes.

Do you have any?

We all know we can calculate the angles so;

but are there any measurements without that assumption.

According to relativity, the frame can be swapped, allowing the earth to move, or the stars.

I don't quite know why everybody hangs onto that star speed for determining angles.

They filled a telescope with water,

but light's angle didn't change more after the surface barrier density change, that it passed thru.

Surface_densitys change is an equally valid idea, for that particular angle change.

Do you have any experiments that measure the light's speed in different medium directly?

i.e. without knowing the refractive index.

e.g. time delays in substance length.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Capiert

[Mordred]

We test light through a medium regularly it is these learned principles which led to the M$M experiment directly. The null result is a direct result of no medium (ether) being present.

 

The entire experiment was designed with a medium in mind

[Strange]

The experiment was NOT designed correctly,

 

 

Who cares (even if it were true).

 

Thousands of other experiments, some using completely different techniques, confirm the expected result.

 

The fact you don't like it is hardly relevant. As Feynman said, If you don't like the way this universe works move to another one.

 

 

 

they don't always make sense to me.

 

That is your problem, not science's.

 

 

 

Do you have any experiments that measure the light's speed in different medium directly?

 

Here, do it yourself: http://physics.nyu.edu/~physlab/Classical%20and%20Quantum%20Wave%20Lab/Speed_of_light_03-01-2016.pdf

[Capiert]

We test light through a medium regularly it is these learned principles which led to the M&M experiment directly. The null result is a direct result of no medium (ether) being present.

 

The entire experiment was designed with a medium in mind

True, a medium was in mind, but the math is wrong. Thus I can't believe the interpretation results.

The null result is because both path lengths are identical, thus same delay;

NOT no ether.

Michelson interpreted, no medium (rather absurd, considering what Maxwell wrote in the encyclopedia of Britanica)

because he (=Michelson) did the math wrong.

His math angles don't all fit his experiment.

That's an obvious cheat.

Michelson calculated a considerable difference

between both paths

with those wrong angles;

that if a difference existed (but it didn't)

then could help determine the earth's speed.

He didn't even have a (correct) starting basis, with wrong math.

(That's incompentence, but he had a nervous breakdown, par for the course of things,

because he was wrong. But he must have got that idea from from somewhere.

You gals & guys would know more about that than me.)

Unfortunately for Michelson his math

is not verified by his experimental results, either.

Michelson drew the wrong conclusion.

In later life he still could NOT believe the ether did not exist

 

(nor many other scientists too,

not to mention Heaviside (developed the 4 socalled Maxwell equations with it), Einstein 1922, Lorentz, Lenard, Newton, ..)

 

repeating the experiment,

but his belief did NOT correct his math error.

So he stayed misguided.

To me it's a trivial mistake,

with serious consequences.

 

But it's NOT my problem,

its yours.

You've all found other ways to deal with such an error.

I've got almost no more further problems with that M&M experiment,

I can now deal with it

& accept that the exact difference

is exactly zero;

& that there is still an ether;

which is probably more than I can say

you all do (right now).

I assume you all know what I meant.

 

I'm more interested in who started the misguidence.

Where did the math sketch (idea) originally come from?

Whose idea was it?

Obviuosly NOT from Maxwell (before Michelson),

because Maxwell was against bidirectional path experiments,

because he had already tried, failed, & determined the reason why they fail,

with an ether (existing).

 

Michelson had tried to pick apart Maxwell's error,

but he had NOT anticipated

that what Maxwell talked about

was only experimental error.

 

Maxwell knew it was a waste of time after that,

but Stokes talked him out of publishing the failured experiment.

If Maxwell had published,

Michelson might NOT have published? Who knows?

But Michelson wanted to show off how well (accurately) he could measure,

so there is no guarantee there.

[Mordred]

As mentioned by Strange these issues were addressed in later experiments with far greater detail. As well as more accurate equipment.

 

 

Here is some pdf coverage to help.

 

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J03/transparencies/5_thursday/1_morning/peters.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjp7rKzwLPQAhUBFWMKHUvtDyoQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNEN_GB--7X4jzs_RoBVi6_0Nu0nDQ

 

This article is a review of tests, and the reasons behind the tests. Arxiv article

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1318&ved=0ahUKEwjp7rKzwLPQAhUBFWMKHUvtDyoQFggmMAM&usg=AFQjCNFW2Ft_ASMCiTK-x3ZWTjlHrcovnA

Science has moved far beyond the experiment in the original tests.

[swansont]

True, a medium was in mind, but the math is wrong. Thus I can't believe the interpretation results.

The null result is because both path lengths are identical, thus same delay;

.

If the paths are identical there is no motion through the aether. If there is no motion, and yet aberration demands that there is, the obvious conclusion is that there is no aether.

[Strange]

Science has moved far beyond the experiment in the original tests.

 

 

Assorted cranks and crackpots haven't though.

[Capiert]

Hi Strange

"The experiment was wrongly designed".

 

Who cares (even if it were true).

I do. (Should I deny it (= my interest)?)

I've seen articles written thru the ages about the ether.

The pros & cons. The cons seem to stem to this experiment

(If I'm not mistaken).

Your team tells me the ether was disproved.

Ok, what was the evidence?

I assume this (M&M experiment) was the major argument,

that started that (opinion), judging from all the commotion involved.

Everyone had expected a result, except Maxwell.

But I didn't know that.

When I 1st saw the experiment, though,

I had a similar impression as Maxwell's

that what gets done, gets undone

on the return path.

I spoke to a physicist from the royal society about that,

& he went thru the calculations on the chalk board.

My mind went blank when he had finished,

=my 1st impression had vanished.

An error was not to be seen,

it seemed convincing.

Good, that led me to the search

to try find the difference

between both perspectives.

Why had I seen, what I later found to be Maxwell's final opinion.

E.g. a concept was there,

why couldn't the math prove it?

Years later I had a hunch

the 2nd dimension of the x,y axis

had been forgotten.

I had for a long time wanted the calculations

from the professor

but the books I had seen were not like his.

Many publishers on internet

want horrendous prices

for a single (ancient) paper

(sometimes the price of a book 30$ & up).

So I was at a loss, frustrated or disappointed

I couldn't back check.

But then I found this forum SFN

& made the link request.

You, Strange, answered

& I was delighted.

But, by the 4th day, it looked futile,

same result.

Were there things we couldn't explain (with science)?

That opened a whole Pandora's box (of questions) for me.

Is there a god? an afterlife? multi_universes?

Should I believe in (Einstein's) relativity?

(My) Back against the wall,

with no other alternative,

it seemed I had no other alternative,

relativity seemed like the only explanation possible

(that was left).

Hesitant on that verge of a 50/50 decision,

unsure, I asked myself,

is it so?

The smallest (inkling) of an impression I got,

was no.

Ok I said, well then why?

That (now) voice_like impression

indicated (=pointed to)

from the (experiment's) sketch in my mind

to look at the experiment('s setup, comparing)

look for its errors (differences).

Do you see any differences

between the sketch & the experiment setup?

Then I noticed on the 2nd arm (=path),

if that was suppose to be a 90 degrees angle to the mirror (b),

why wasn't it so in the diagram fig. 2 (1887)?

Then I thought, uh?

How is that possible?

How can you make a 90 degrees (angle into) not 90 (degrees).

These were reliable men (or so I had thought). & I had trusted them.

But there was something there that was not right, & didn't make sense.

Well then, I knew there, the mystery been solved,

& was happy (=content) (that)

I had not made the conversion to the Einstein (religion, denomination)

like everybody else had.

You had almost converted me (to that denomination).

My major argument (=objection) against relativity

is it is time consuming.

I can't tell you the years I've wasted with it.

& the unsurity,

dealing with things we cannot measure (with enough accuracy).

I noticed you carefully gave me a paper on relativity

hoping I'd swallow it,

but it was the last thing I wanted,

(it was) an obstacle preventing me from reading the M&M experiment,

simply a distraction

from getting to the root of the problem

(in my opinion).

 

OK, so if the M&M experiment has a (serious math error (flaw)

& it's not being discussed

& made public,

then what is the reason (=purpose)

for the coverup?

 

Why is it still being promoted?

(To promote relativity? Who knows?)

 

I don't have a full appreciation for what we can do with relativity

that is important,

that we can not do with classical physics KE

using the initial speed v0=c.

What can we do with relativity, that is (so) important?

Will it stop wars peacefully? & make everybody happy & healthy?

(Kepler's orbit period is only an approximation

(with error!).)

Are errors going to do that & improve everything?

String theory & GR (ch22) say c is NOT constant,

although SR is based on constant c.

What sort of non_sense is that.

What are the (significant, useful) issues (=themes)

for a practical person (like me)?

What good is it for our daily life?

I don't need relativity to have an atomic clock,

Won't simply "accurate" ether mechanics do instead?

Where & why?

 

I can't make much sense about wave mechanics,

without an ether,

& Einstein promoted it (=the ether), 1922 Lyden.

Feynnman even said quantum mechanics (as we now have)

is not understandable

(or words to that effect).

Einstein & Bohr had their differences,

=Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics either.

Please don't ask where I read that I don't remember,

I only said it now

to give you an idea of how my opinion was formed.

Einstein was searching for a unified field theory,

but never completed

(because it's not possible to with such a mess).

If you guys aren't interested

in cleaning up your errors,

then that's your problem

with all its disadvantages.

I'm just trying to help (that little bit) if I can.

(I don't know about you, but)

I'm sick & tired of stumbling into mistakes & errors,

that I never expected.

& taking the longest way (=method)

to get there.

That's never the way I expected physics to be.

But it's still happening so.

 

To answer your question generally:

 

Anyone (cares about the M&M flaw, who has been)

insulted by the absurdity (=nonsense) of its denial. Yours truly.

But there are lots of etherists out there. Internet is full of them.

Denial has the advantage that you don't have to prove anything.

Science has also professed the earth was the center of the universe,

& then changed its mind 100s of years later.

I don't have to wait around so long to make up my mind.

In the 1900s you=scientists rejected continental drift for more than a decade.

(=Said it was wrong. Wilson was almost retired till ya caught on.

It's a popularity contest, hardly much more, when it runs so bad.

For me it was obvious that the continents had been fit together;

but I was educated (=taught) the opposite, because of scientists' reasoning.

Past is past, Wilson gave us a rundown on what happened to him.)

 

 

Thousands of other experiments, some using completely different techniques, confirm the expected result.

That's what I question the most. What are the expectations & why?

E.g. Are they bidirectional (forth & back) experiments?

Maxwell said that kind is futile, it won't work.

Only a 1_way experiment can help show ether existence.

E.g. Inertial fall, of light.

 

 

The fact you don't like it

it?

 

is hardly relevant. As Feynman said, If you don't like the way this universe works move to another one.

Oh I enjoy the universe enough.

It's some of her inhabitants

that's more the problem.

 

 

That is your problem, not science's.

True science has no problems,

it's holders have them,

dealing with the rest.

 

Here, do it yourself: http://physics.nyu.edu/~physlab/Classical%20and%20Quantum%20Wave%20Lab/Speed_of_light_03-01-2016.pdf

Thank's for the link Strange.

 

(#18)

#19

Sorry I haven't found the link you wanted,

& I don't know 1.

Maybe Feynnman wrote something,

about time going backwards

for anti_matter.

That's the obvious polarity problem of dealing with rooting time squared.

If you go to the mathematicians they say the negative polarity is wrong for time;

but if you go to the nuclear physicists they say time goes backwards (=is negative),

so their length can stay positive (=normal or natural).

Somewhere a compromise has to be made with that polarity syntax.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Capiert

[swansont]

 

Then I noticed on the 2nd arm (=path),

if that was suppose to be a 90 degrees angle to the mirror (b),

why wasn't it so in the diagram fig. 2 (1887)?

Then I thought, uh?

How is that possible?

How can you make a 90 degrees (angle into) not 90 (degrees).

These were reliable men (or so I had thought). & I had trusted them.

But there was something there that was not right, & didn't make sense.

 

 

 

The angle can't be 90 degrees if the apparatus is moving. The light would miss the mirror. The angle is only 90 degrees if it's stationary, which is what the M-M experiment shows: we are not moving with respect to an aether. But Strange has already pointed this out.

 

So perhaps you can explain how the light would not show any deflection if we're moving at 30 km/s with respect to the aether.

[Tim88]

Actually, the MM experiment falsified a static aether. Other experiments disprove a dragged aether.

 

[..]

 

Surely you know better than that! The MMX falsified Newton's mechanics, in particular the Galilean transformations; this was solidly established by Lorentz and Einstein. Maxwell and MM assumed their validity, which seemed at the time so natural that they didn't even mention that assumption. However, the point of the discussion is the calculations, which all of us (except Capiert) hold to be essentially correct, insofar as they were based on that faulty assumption.

[..] That (now) voice_like impression

indicated (=pointed to)

from the (experiment's) sketch in my mind

to look at the experiment('s setup, comparing)

look for its errors (differences).

Do you see any differences

between the sketch & the experiment setup?

Then I noticed on the 2nd arm (=path),

if that was suppose to be a 90 degrees angle to the mirror (b),

why wasn't it so in the diagram fig. 2 (1887)?

Then I thought, uh?

How is that possible?

How can you make a 90 degrees (angle into) not 90 (degrees).

[..]

OK, so if the M&M experiment has a (serious math error (flaw)

& it's not being discussed

& made public,

then what is the reason (=purpose)

for the coverup?

 

Why is it still being promoted?

(To promote relativity? Who knows?)

[..]

 

 

Sorry but it's unclear to me what error you perceive.

There is a little issue with the reflection angle, and that was discussed in the literature of the time; is that perhaps what you mean? I can dig up one of the old publications next week if you like. For a null result one has to assume length contraction; that also fixes the issue with the reflection angles (that's a detail that is rarely mentioned).

 

There is no cover-up; only a simplification. While MMX played a motivating role in the development of SR, it was just one of many experiments that led to it.

From a modern perspective however, you can approach the question much more simply.

 

The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment demonstrated the reality of Lorentz contraction in case of time dilation; and time dilation by the Lorentz factor has been established by means of a number of experiments since then.

 

When you make a drawing taking that into account, you should find that you will predict a perfect null result for MMX.

PS I see that now the Wikipedia article on this, while still flawed, is much improved, and the issue with the mirror is discussed as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Mirror_reflection

Edited November 26, 2016 by Tim88

[Tim88]

PS I had not seen your earlier comment which looks very wrong, and probably that's also what swansont referred to (I marked it in red):

 

[..]
Why more experiments, for more accuracy, when the experiment is wrong?
The more accurate link you gave me earlier, #2, maintains the same wrong geometry.
http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml
The dotted line path is wrong,
& the incident ray should land (hitting perpendicularly, straight up) at C
(instead of diagonally to the right at C'),
but to do that the mirror C must be much longer to the left
(not even a millimeter experimentally),
(in order to advance (to the) right to the C' position
while getting hit perpendicularly at C).
Is that clear for you?
The reflection at C is based on a (circular) Huygens wavefront.
The incident angle is 90 degrees,
but the reflected angle is double the professor's.
E.g. Michelson allowed himself half of that (correct angle)
split onto both angles, which is wrong,
because 90 degrees (incident) does not exist (in his sketch)
although his experiment is so (=90 degrees, even while moving).
Most calculations don't use Huygen's principle
& so they get the wrong answer.

[..]

 

You are right that one should use the Huygens principle. If you do it correctly, you will find that the error is much smaller than you claim, and in the other direction. Correct use of that principle with a moving mirror implies that you account for the position of each point of the mirror at the time that the wavefront reaches that point.

 

By the way, at first also Michelson got that one wrong in his first publication. If I correctly remember, he was corrected by Lorentz.

As a matter of fact, indeed: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

- As corrected by Lorentz, and also (without going in details):

 

It may be remarked that the rays ba_/ and ca_/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a_/, though the difference is of the second order; this does not affect the validity of the reasoning.

[Mordred]

Here is a modern test that brings the accuracy of the one way speed of light tests down to 10^-19 @95 % confidence level.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6954&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjwmaGj99jQAhVDwVQKHVxlAJEQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNEhZHeTyLlenVD-Xem4V95RFXRR8A