Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:21:03 -0700
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:G9D2f.14525$U51.7555@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In discussing about the MMX is another post I noticed it and
> similar experiments gave expected fringe shifts based on the
> sun being stationary wrt to an aether. I can not see how such
> an assumption would be reasonable. The result of the
> experiment of course was that the earth was to a rather good
> degree of accuracy stationary wrt to any supposed aether -
> which strongly suggests it does not exist. But that the sun is
> stationary wrt to a supposed aether seems just as unlikely.
> Does anyone know the thinking behind assuming the sun was
> stationary wrt to the aether?
Some (more or less) cranky options:
1) A version of dragged aether that is disallowed by other
observations,
2) Frame dragging, but why the Earth itself doesn't do it...
3) The "local stake" that maintains the illusion of constant
alpha isn't the Earth.
Beyond that, aren't all these "in the dirt"? And aren't they all
performed by people that didn't know about our motion wrt the
Universe at large (namely "observer bias")?
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- References:
- MMX Expected Shft.
- From: Bill Hobba
- MMX Expected Shft.
- Prev by Date: Re: The true crackpots
- Next by Date: Re: Newbie Question
- Previous by thread: MMX Expected Shft.
- Next by thread: Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
