Relativity goes full circle: back to 1998 paper!
Frank Russo - June 02 2009.
With my more recent work on the Michelson-Morley, I've been able to appreciate much more how good my 1998 paper was. It's almost as if my relativity has gone full circle simply to amplify the importance of my ground-breaking work published in 1998 - in "Speculations".
Basically all you have to do is render the arms equal in the laboratory frame and it all takes care of itself, straight out of my 1998 paper. To do this you just add 0.166598191m to the orbital arm of 10.66420099m, remembering that you haven't changed the overall sub-interval of 12.921923284/304475873.2 sec. and therefore the origin travel forwards will remain unchanged at 2.257722293m... this is because the mirror motion forward is reduced.
One must of course realize that the primary light component is still longer than the resulting 10.83079918 m, by 0.169200818m along the orbit, so as to reflect the 11 m travelled 'perpendicularly' along the hypotenuse... (don't worry too much about the decimal endings... remember the calculator rounds off the last significant figure, and when you carry on from one calculation into another the error can add up)!
Now this extra length, does add apparatus length in a 'non-summation-of series' way due to its not being 'open-ended', (i.e. it contributes 0.029562817m in a disjointed way... further along), giving an overall addition of 0.198763635m. Now this latter figure has to be turned into an origin addition (to the extra 2.0911241 m overall extra travelled by light), by working out the segment which would give rise to it through a summation of series. The latter is done by dividing the 0.198763635 by the SDR of 1.193072004 resulting in the 0.166598191 m which we are trying to account for as extra origin movement forward!
This is all wonderful because it explains all the existing difficulties! And if you've been following my work for a long time... I think you would appreciate how satisfying this is for me!
P.S. - In fairness to the original 1998 paper and its addendum, I must stress that the original paper would have had the contracted arm smaller, only for the purpose of working things out!... I clearly always maintained that the arms in motion would have to be equal so as to pass the rotation test. Of course if the arms are perfectly equal in the laboratory frame, it does bring up the possibility of a simple gradual interchange of arm-identity as they rotate!