Re: Michelson-Morley vs. astronomical data [was "Why Poincare ..."]


In article <unihg110p8peqg8tvk4a76gnvjv2rhjlrt@xxxxxxx>,
Paul Stowe <ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:03:09 +0000 (UTC), lnd@xxxxxxxxxx (Levin) wrote:
|>
|> > Could somebody please explain why was Michelson-Morley test needed?
|>
|> [ Reply snipped ]
|>
|> > Were not contemporary clocks good enough so that Galilean
|> > dependence of the speed of light on the motion of the
|> > emitting/reflecting or receiving bodies could be excluded by
|> > astronomical data?
|>
|> What astronomical data, circa 1880-1904?

Timing of the eclipses of Jupiter's moons, for a start. Much
older.

The answer to his question is that a direct experiment is many
times more trustworthy than an indirect one. With either, if
ANY of the assumptions upon which you are basing your deductions
are incorrect, your conclusion is unreliable. And there are a
lot more and more sensitive assumptions in an indirect experiment.

For example, what about eddy currents in the aether around
Jupiter?

This is the reason that the cosmological 'proofs' of general
relativity at high space-time stresses are so much porcine
cleansing fluid. There are so many alternative ways of
explaining the observations that they are at best not-disproofs.
No, I am not bashing Einstein - I am bashing his more fanatical
followers.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

.

Quantcast