Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:25:18 -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?
I asked when it was known that the Sun moved with respect to
other stars on sci.astro ("When did we establish..."). I
received this response from Mike Dworetsky:
<QUOTE>
The Sun's motion of c. 20 km/s with respect to the local stars
had been
known for a long time by then (since William Herschel, around
1790-1800),
but is a constant velocity.
<END QUOTE>
And Peter Webb pointed out that this effect should have been
vectorially additive to the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
fact that it wasn't included is beyond me.
David A. Smith
.
- References:
- MMX Expected Shft.
- From: Bill Hobba
- MMX Expected Shft.
- Prev by Date: Re: The true crackpots
- Next by Date: Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- Previous by thread: Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- Next by thread: Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
