Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:55:32 GMT
Bill Hobba wrote:
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.
Today it isn't. In 1800 or even 1900 it was. That was the dominant mode of thinking about physics, astronomy, and space.
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.
Yes, because the values observed were thought to be small compared to the earth's orbital speed. A modern error analysis of the MMX shows that it was not at all as sensitive as Michelson and Morley thought it was.
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?
A great big assumption that space is Euclidean, coupled with the fact that this assumption was so pervasive (and self-evident) that nobody seriously questioned it until Einstein in 1905.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- From: Dennis
- Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- References:
- MMX Expected Shft.
- From: Bill Hobba
- MMX Expected Shft.
- Prev by Date: Re: Androcles' and Henri's Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
- 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
|
