How the amended orbital speed is derived from the MME visualization.
Frank Pio Russo - April 03, 2014.
Recently, I've seen my old Michelson-Morley visualization shoot back to number 1 on Google, and stay there! I therefore encourage you all to take another look at it:
The very interesting thing is that the amended orbital speed can be easily demonstrated from this diagram. It is there clear that once the basic absolute 11 metre segment is travelled, the mirror is an actual 1.752722466 m further forward... however the crucial fact is that for the overall orbital interval time to equal the overall perpendicular time, a further 0.169200818 m has to be travelled by the orbital mirror. Light has to of course bridge this overall gap of 1.921923284 m so as to be reflected by the mirror.
Hence as shown in the diagram, light ends up travelling an actual 1.921923284 m whilst only demonstrating an obvious length of 1.752722466 m... in other words some of the motion is gobbled-up by the motion of the apparatus. It follows that the modified orbital speed that I've often showed by other means, is also here ostensibly demonstrable.
All you have to do is divide the 1.752722466 by 1.921923284 and get 0.911962761, which you of course have to turn into a slightly bigger factor in view of the fact that the sub-interval is shortened by 0.984618107 ; therefore you divide 0.911962761 by 0.984618107 which gives you 0.926209619 and this represents the SDR (slowing down 'factor') which is incurred by the orbital speed in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The next logical thing to do is to multiply the 'real' orbital speed of 53,198,115.45 m/sec by 0.926209619 and you get the amended orbital speed of 49,272,606.2 m/sec... this is of course in very good harmony with what I have shown before on a number of occasions. It is this latter speed that of course, forms the denominator of the fractions which are formed to express the time interval of apparatus motions in travelled light distances. The conclusion which is obviously inferred is that everything in the Michelson-Morley balances-out, without having to resort to the fudge-factor of time-dilation.
In conclusion, this Michelson-Morley issue was settled in my 1998 'final solution' paper... however, because it is one of the most difficult issues that one is ever likely to encounter, I hope that this extra explanation is appreciated!