Is There a Flaw in the Michelson-Morley Experiment?

[ZapperZ]

This is a fishing expedition.

"We require that when someone says "I read somewhere" or "I heard somewhere", that the exact valid references is given. Or else, it is impossible to know if what you read is correct or valid, if you interpreted it correctly, or if you are reading some crackpot information. So from now on, please provide the exact source if you wish to understand if what you read or heard is correct."

Who is "We"? You're the only one who has complained about this. It's just a Question.

"However, please note that, per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374", dubious sources are not allowed to be referenced here."

I'm not asking if the material I read is correct. I'm asking about the MME. Why are you reprimanding me for asking a question. Would it have been better to leave out the " I read somewhere"? We all get our ideas from somewhere.

It isn't a reprimand (which would involve an official warning). I ask this from everyone who comes here and mentions the same thing. It is the only way to make sure what you read is the same thing as what you interpret. You don't think having a proper citation is at all important? It also forces you to pay attention to your sources, which is something we hope people will take away from being on here.

While PF is still an open forum, we are trying to impose a stricter standard than other forums that do not demand such quality in their discussion, and one of such standards is the use of clear citations of sources.

Zz.

 

[MikeLizzi]

That's a great link...But does, and I not challenging the logic here, the MM machine have the capacity to turn the end mirrors so that the cross current beam comes back to it's source. Or is that too small an amount to be measured? Remember the one boat had to come back fighting a current and was coming back on a diagonal path.

Insightfull response. Following my analogy would suggest that the MM apparatus was reflecting the beams back into the source (the flame). No, it didn't do that. Both cross current and parallel current beams were ultimately reflected toward an observing screen upon which the constructive or destructive interference would be seen.

I should revise my analogy to suit. That will add more complexity, though.

Oh, and yes, the position and angle of the mirrors were adjustable to the maximum precision of the day. I'd hate to be one turning set screws to move something 10 nanometers.

 

[PhilDSP]

What does that mean...exactly? I'm a lay person. Sorry.

Here is a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity

 

[mtworkowski@o]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Here is a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity

Thanks, that's exactly where I was when you posted.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Since the 1980s, various experiments have verified that it is possible for the group velocity of laser light pulses sent through specially prepared materials to significantly exceed the speed of light in vacuum.

 

[ZapperZ]

Since the 1980s, various experiments have verified that it is possible for the group velocity of laser light pulses sent through specially prepared materials to significantly exceed the speed of light in vacuum.

.. and as in the NEC experiment from many years ago (have been discussed many times in here), you need to closely look at what they did and why no part of the wave actually traveled faster than c (another example where knowing the source and reading the actual source can make a difference). When the pulse is reshaped due to the anomalous dispersive material, you can get the appearance of a group velocity moving faster than c. But nothing here violated SR. Such effect doesn't happen in a typical MM experiment.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482

Zz.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

.. and as in the NEC experiment from many years ago (have been discussed many times in here), you need to closely look at what they did and why no part of the wave actually traveled faster than c (another example where knowing the source and reading the actual source can make a difference). When the pulse is reshaped due to the anomalous dispersive material, you can get the appearance of a group velocity moving faster than c. But nothing here violated SR. Such effect doesn't happen in a typical MM experiment.

Zz.

My only reason for pointing it out was that I had read it and that the mathematics had been ambiguous...Excellent link, by the way.

 

[cristo]

My only reason for pointing it out was that I had read it and that the mathematics had been ambiguous.

Doesn't this go back to Zz's point though: where did you read about the experiment? Do you have a source showing the 'ambiguities' in the mathematics?

By the way, I've cleaned up the quote tags in your post on the previous page. It gets pretty confusing telling who said what if you either mess the tags up, or don't put them in. For future reference, to break up a quote so that you can write inside use [ /quote ] and [ quote ] (without the spaces in the brackets). You can hit "quote" on your post above to see the input, and see what I mean.

 

[pmb_phy]

I think I read somewhere that there's a flaw in the Michaelson Morley experiment. Is this true?

Yes. It is true. The flaw has to do with what is known as the extinction theorem. This is mentioned in Special Relativity, by A.P. French, Norton Press, (1968). pages 127-128. The author writes

As mentioned in Chapter 3, this result, although an essential feature of Einstein's formulation of special relativity, did not receive a convincing demonstration until much later. One crucial reason is that the propagation of light through a medium (even a transparent one) involves a continual process of absorption of the incident light and its reemission as secondary radiation by the medium - it takes only a very small thickness of matter to bring about this replacement. Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of 10^-8cm of glass or 0.1 mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source. This phenomena, known as extinction (even though it may not involve any appreciable loss of intensity in the light beam), has invalidated some of the observations (e.g. the apparent motions of binary stars, already referred to in Chapter 3) that were at first believed to provide confirmation of Einstein's second postulate - the invariance of c.

I'm sad to see that you had problems asking this question. Its a shame that this kind of thing happens here. Rest assured that not all of us think like that. I admire it when people ask questions like this. Its obvious that if you had more than a mere "heard of" then you probably wouldn't have had to ask this question. Please don't let this discourage ypou from asking questions in the future. If you are given a hard time again then feel free to ask me in PM.

Best wishes and keep asking these probing questions.

Pete

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Thank you Pete.

 

[pmb_phy]

Thank you Pete.

You're welcome.

Do you think that this may be what you were referring to?

Pete

ps - Check your PM.

 

[Nickelodeon]

As I see idea that aether is traveling towards the Earth is most logical taking into account knowledge that light is bent near massive objects.
However I doubt that it is technically feasible to perform interferometer experiment vertically. You will have material deformations due to gravity and probably a lot of vibrations when rotation of apparatus is performed. And predicted outcome of experiment is not obvious to me as well. To make a prediction one needs good understanding of material deformations in accelerated frame.

And it is not obvious that wavelength of the merging beams should be different. Why should they differ?

I think the the light beam going skywards against gravity would be blue shifted and red shifted on its return. The horizontal beam would be unaffected.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Do you think that this may be what you were referring to?

Something along those lines.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes. It is true. The flaw has to do with what is known as the extinction theorem. This is mentioned in Special Relativity, by A.P. French, Norton Press, (1968). pages 127-128. The author writes...
Pete

Pete, I'd just like to clarify that that passage was actually referring to the MM experiment. It doesn't actually say that in the passage. Is the "this result" it is referring to (from the previous sentence?) a reference to the MM experiment? And if so, how, exactly does it point to a flaw in the experiment?

I am unable to find any confirmation of that (merely googling "michelson morley experiment extinction theorem" turns up only this thread!) and I don't have that book handy...

 

[Doc Al]

Pete, I'd just like to clarify that that passage was actually referring to the MM experiment. It doesn't actually say that in the passage. Is the "this result" it is referring to (from the previous sentence?) a reference to the MM experiment? And if so, how, exactly does it point to a flaw in the experiment?

I am unable to find any confirmation of that (merely googling "michelson morley experiment extinction theorem" turns up only this thread!) and I don't have that book handy...

That passage in French's book does not refer to the MM experiment, but to experiments/observations attempting to prove that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. I don't see the relevance of the quoted passage to the MM experiment, nor does French raise the issue of extinction (or any other issue) in his discussion of the MM experiment.

 

[pmb_phy]

Pete, I'd just like to clarify that that passage was actually referring to the MM experiment.

The reason that I quoted it was because it seemed apparent to me that the author was indeed referring to experiments such as the Michelson Morley experiment. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

Is the "this result" it is referring to (from the previous sentence?) a reference to the MM experiment?

If you'd like I can scan that portion of the book in and upload it onto my web site. You can then read it yourself and come to your own conclusion.

And if so, how, exactly does it point to a flaw in the experiment?

The way I see it is that the MMX was supposed to determine whether or not the speed of light was independant of the motion of the source. The extinction effect indicates that the speed of light will be relative to the medium, in this case air. Thus if the speed of light actually was dependant on the speed of the source then this information would be lost since the speed of light will end up moving relative to the medium itself.

I am unable to find any confirmation of that (merely googling "michelson morley experiment extinction theorem" turns up only this thread!) and I don't have that book handy...

You could always E-mail the author. Let me do some searching myself and see what I come up with. In the meantime I will upload some relavent articles about the extinction effect that appeared in the American Journal of Physics.

I could very well be wrong though. However I did mention this to an expert and he didn't object to this interpretation.

Pete

 

[russ_watters]

The way I see it is that the MMX was supposed to determine whether or not the speed of light was independant of the motion of the source.

Relative to what? In the MMX, the source and detector are stationary wrt each other. From what Doc said, it implies that that passage is talking about a source moving relative to the detector.

If you'd like I can scan that portion of the book in and upload it onto my web site. You can then read it yourself and come to your own conclusion.

No, that answer is good enough for me: what you are saying is that this is your conclusion, not what was actually being said by the author (but an extension of it). It does not appear that your conclusion is part of the conventional interpretation of the experiment.

 

[pmb_phy]

Relative to what? In the MMX, the source and detector are stationary wrt each other. From what Doc said, it implies that that passage is talking about a source moving relative to the detector. No, that answer is good enough for me: what you are saying is that this is your conclusion, not what was actually being said by the author (but an extension of it). It does not appear that your conclusion is part of the conventional interpretation of the experiment.

I could very well be wrong. That's why I'm going to E-mail the author and ask him.

Pete

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Russ and Doc,
Are you guys saying that an experiment related to the ether is not related to the question of a preferential reference frame?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ and Doc,
Are you guys saying that an experiment related to the ether is not related to the question of a preferential reference frame?

That's not anywhere close to what we were saying - we didn't mention anything about the concept of the universal/preferential reference frame in our recent posts. I don't know where you would get that or how to interpret what you are asking. However:

The classical ether is the Universal/Preferential Reference Frame. The MM experiment was the first good evidence that it does not exist.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

That passage in French's book does not refer to the MM experiment, but to experiments/observations attempting to prove that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. I don't see the relevance of the quoted passage to the MM experiment, nor does French raise the issue of extinction (or any other issue) in his discussion of the MM experiment.

doc says it here

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Relative to what? In the MMX, the source and detector are stationary wrt each other. From what Doc said, it implies that that passage is talking about a source moving relative to the detector. No, that answer is good enough for me: what you are saying is that this is your conclusion, not what was actually being said by the author (but an extension of it). It does not appear that your conclusion is part of the conventional interpretation of the experiment.

and you say it here

 

[Doc Al]

doc says it here

and you say it here

What are you talking about?

 

[Integral]

It is nice when you have a quoted source at hand.

The quoted phrase: "This result" clearly refers to the last sentence in the previous paragraph:

This then includes the result that light emitted from a source that is moveing relative to the laboratory still has the speed c, no matter how fast the source moves.

In the MM experiment, the source is NOT moveing wrt to the lab therefore this is NOT a disscussion of the MM experiment. Further the last sentence in the quoted paragraph, but not, for some strange reason, included in Pete's quote, goes like this:

We shall now descibe two experiments which do not appear to be vitated by the extinction phenomenon.

edit:
Let me be clear the source of these quotes is Special Relativity by A.P. French copyright @ 1968,1966 by MIT Published by W.W. Norton &Co

 

[Doc Al]

It is nice when you have a quoted source at hand.

Indeed. I have the book right in front of me and I agree (as I said earlier) that the quoted section has nothing whatsoever to do with the MM experiment.

 

[pmb_phy]

In the MM experiment, the source is NOT moveing wrt to the lab therefore this is NOT a disscussion of the MM experiment.

As I said, I could be wrong. Let's not forget that shall we??

The reason I assumed that it was referring to the MMX experiment was because the light in the MM experiment was moving relative to the ether. Due to the extinction phenomena this would no longer be the case. The light would then move relative to the air, the air is the medium in which the light source is at rest. Thus the MM experiment would not be able to detect the motion of the ether.

Further the last sentence in the quoted paragraph, but not, for some strange reason, included in Pete's quote, goes like this:

There was nothing strange about it. The experiment was not the MMX experiment. Why would I have included it?

I have the book right in front of me and I agree (as I said earlier) that the quoted section has nothing whatsoever to do with the MM experiment.

That's a bit of an exageration since the subject addresses the motion of light relative to the air and not the ether. Just because that section doesn't explicitly mention a particular experiment you can't take that to mean that the it has nothing to do with it. That is not a logical inference at all. In fact that section doesn't mention stellar aberation either. Do you think that the material in that section also has nothing to do with stellar aberation too?

The reason I made the associattion is that the MM experiment was designed to detect the speed of light relative to the ether and not the air. If you think that the extinction phenomena would not effect the detection of the ether then please provide a derivation/proof/arguement. Thank you.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

In the MM experiment, the source is NOT moveing wrt to the lab therefore this is NOT a disscussion of the MM experiment. Further the last sentence in the quoted paragraph, but not, for some strange reason, included in Pete's quote, goes like this:

And what is this "lab" that French is referring to? Is it the frame of reference at rest with respect to the ether? If so then the light source used in the MMX is a moving source. In fact the very purpose of MMX was to detect the motion of the source of light relative to the ether. In that sense the source is moving relative to the ether.

There is an article on the literature about this. The article is referenced by French on page 74

Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special Relativity, J.G. Fox, Am. J. Phy., 30, 297 (1962)

The author discusses the extinction theorem. In the abstract the author notes

It is concluded that there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity.

So I ask you this; If Fox concludes that the there's no evidence for the second postulate then do you think he's ignoring the MM experiment?

Would anyone like to read this article?

Pete

 

[jtbell]

Note that a version of the Michelson-Morley experiment has been done in vacuum, with negative results: G. Joos, Ann. Phys. 7 385 (1930). (reference from the FAQ on the experimental basis of special relativity)

 

[pmb_phy]

Note that a version of the Michelson-Morley experiment has been done in vacuum, with negative results: G. Joos, Ann. Phys. 7 385 (1930). (reference from the FAQ on the experimental basis of special relativity)

Exactly. The Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment comes to mind too.

Its off that Fox failed to mention that. He claimed that there was no experimental evidence of the second postulate.

Pete

 

[Doc Al]

The reason I assumed that it was referring to the MMX experiment was because the light in the MM experiment was moving relative to the ether. Due to the extinction phenomena this would no longer be the case. The light would then move relative to the air, the air is the medium in which the light source is at rest. Thus the MM experiment would not be able to detect the motion of the ether.

This seems to be your personal view. The light was presumed to travel with the ether and the purpose of the MM experiment was to detect the speed of the "ether wind" with respect to the Earth. Since the ether would be continually dragging the light along with it, I fail to see how extinction plays a role. Certainly A.P. French, in his book from which you quote, did not see fit to mention such a concern.

Indeed. I have the book right in front of me and I agree (as I said earlier) that the quoted section has nothing whatsoever to do with the MM experiment.

That's a bit of an exageration since the subject addresses the motion of light relative to the air and not the ether. Just because that section doesn't explicitly mention a particular experiment you can't take that to mean that the it has nothing to do with it. That is not a logical inference at all. In fact that section doesn't mention stellar aberation either. Do you think that the material in that section also has nothing to do with stellar aberation too?

Please. You quoted French, clearly implying that the quoted passage points out a problem with the MM experiment. (Odd how French does not see fit to mention this in his discussion of that experiment.) The relevance of extinction to the MM experiment is your claim, not French's.

And, no, I don't see what extinction has to do with stellar aberration.

The reason I made the associattion is that the MM experiment was designed to detect the speed of light relative to the ether and not the air. If you think that the extinction phenomena would not effect the detection of the ether then please provide a derivation/proof/arguement. Thank you.

Sorry, Pete, but it doesn't work that way. Since you are the one making this claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide a reference. Let's have it.

 

[pmb_phy]

This seems to be your personal view.

Yes. It is. But that doesn't mean that my personal view is inconsistent with French's personal point of view. I'm also curious as to why you're ignoring the reasons that I came to have this "view." Why is that? Let us also not forget that I openly admit that I could very well be wrong. Let us not forget that shall we?

Recall that the section you read starting on page 127 refers to Chapter 3 and in that chapter French refers to an article by Fox. In that article Fox concludes

It is concluded that there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity.

Since this is clearly connected to the reason I came to my position on this why didn't you take this into consideration in your response? Since you clearly stated that

And, no, I don't see what extinction has to do with stellar aberration.

Then it seems very clear to me that you didn't go back and read what it was that French was referring to when he wrote on page 127

As we mentioned in Chapter 3, this result, although an essential feature of Einstein's formulation of special relativity, did not receive a convincing demonstration until much later.

French explains the problem of stellar aberation and refers to the article by Fox which explains why those experiments were faulty due to the extinction phenomena. Why are you ignoring that?Also how could French ever come to that conclusion that the MM experiment was not faulty if Fox says that "there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity"?

As I said earlier I can make the AJP articles available to those who want to read them. If you have a serious interest in this subject then I suggest that you read the articles.

However the second of Fox's articles does give a list of sections which he discusses in his second article. I didn't see this until just now. Below the list the author writes

It may be noticed that the list does not include the most famous of all relativistic phenomena - the Michelson-Morely experiment. The reason is that Ritz theory was relativistic (in the Galilean sense) and thus automatically explained the negative results of this experiment as well as the Kennedy-Thorndyke and Trouton-Nobel experiment.

However this paper is on emission theory. I don't yet know its connection to the exitinction theorem.

As for how the extinction theorem effects the Michelson-Morely experiment(MMX); when analyzing the results of the Michelson-Morely experiment one assumes that the Earth is moving through the ether. The MMX was at rest on the Earth.Since the source of light was at rest with respect to the MMX it also follows that the source was at rest on the Earth. The source of light therefore moved relative to the ether. Let one of the two interferometer be parallel to the direction of motion (Arm A) the other is then perpendicular to it (Arm B). According to the ether theory the speed of light relative to the MMX has one value when traveling parallel to Arm A and another value when traveling antiparallel to it. The interferometer was designed to detect these different speeds of light. However according to the extinction phenomena the light will travel at a speed which is relative to the medium, in this case air, and thus there is no expected difference in the speeds of light parallel or antiparallel to Arm A. This means that the MMX cannot detect the ether. It was this that I was asking you to prove wrong. I thought that this explanation was too simple for me to have to explain. That's why I didn't bother until now.

What do you believe is wrong with the above analysis of the MMX experiment?

Pete

 

[cristo]

Recall that the section you read starting on page 127 refers to Chapter 3 and in that chapter French refers to an article by Fox. In that article Fox concludes ...

Have you actually read this paper, Pete? If so, then it should be quite clear that the paper is not talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment, but is only talking about classes of experiments "in which light sources were in motion with respect to the measuring equipment." In fact, this is stated not only in the first paragraph of the introduction, but also the first paragraph of the conclusion.

This conversation all stems from you stating to a new member that there was a problem relating to the MM experiment, and suggesting that people here at PF were trying to avoid answering the question. However, it has since transpired that neither the text you quoted, nor the paper that you cited had anything to do with the original question. As Doc Al has said above, it is on you to provide a valid reference that agrees with your position on this matter. If you cannot, then it is a personal theory and, as such, not permitted here at PF.

 

[pmb_phy]

Have you actually read this paper, Pete?

Of course. I also said I'd make it available to anyone who'd want to read it too.

If so, then it should be quite clear that the paper is not talking about the Michelson-Morely experiment, ...

Who said it was? People are reading too much into what I wrote. Please pay attention to what I write rather than what you think I was trying to imply.

...but is only talking about classes of experiments "in which light sources were in motion with respect to the measuring equipment." In fact, this is stated not only in the first paragraph of the introduction, but also the first paragraph of the conclusion.

Yes. I understand that. Seems that Doc Al didn't even make this connection either. Oh well. It wasn't the purpose of my quote to do so anyway. I mentioned that paper because of the comment in the abstract. In fact I stated that in no uncertain terms too! In fact I stated that more than once as I recall yet people keep on ignorinh that fact. I wonder why is that? Hmmmmm...

I referred to that paper because find it very hard to believe that someone would say It is concluded that there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity if they actually believed that the MMX results were valid. Are you telling me that this was lost on you?

I never never never said that the author was addressing the MMX in either the text or the paper. Why are you ignoring that fact too? I had strongly emphasized that I might be wrong because of the fact that its quite possible that when the author of that article, i.e. Fox, said "It is concluded that there may not exist any sure evidence..." he may just have been knowingly ignoring the MMX. I find that hard to believe, hence my quoting on that comment and that comment only.

Let me remind you of a fact that you are ignoring for some odd reason. Russ Watters wrote

Pete, I'd just like to clarify that that passage was actually referring to the MM experiment. It doesn't actually say that in the passage. Is the "this result" it is referring to (from the previous sentence?) a reference to the MM experiment? And if so, how, exactly does it point to a flaw in the experiment?

Notice that Russ stated that this was to clarify something. He didn't post it as his personal opinion. I'm curious as to why nobody is jumping down Russ's throat about this too? Is it because he's one of the "gang" and you don't contradict your fellow mentors? Now recall my response

The reason that I quoted it was because it seemed apparent to me that the author was indeed referring to experiments such as the Michelson Morley experiment. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

Please tell me that you understood what the term seemed means when I said that it seemed apparent. I made every effort to clarify that whether or not this was the authors intent was unknown to me and that my interpretation of the authors writing was my motivation for referring to this. But I merely referred to French because he mentions the extinction theorem. If he didn't write the following

Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of 10^-8cm of glass or 0.1 mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source.

Then I might never have quoted the book in the first place.

This conversation all stems from you stating to a new member that there was a problem relating to the MM experiment, and suggesting that people here at PF were trying to avoid answering the question.

I found it very irritating that the OP got flak for not asking his question in a "politically correct way" (or however you'd like to phrase it). Just because a person doesn't know how to ask for what he is looking for should never be used to prohibit them from asking a question. Responses will almost always help the OP reformulate their question better. Several regular posters here have sent me PMs of about this explaining to me that they don't appreciate the way moderators handle these things. So don't get the impression that all the moderators are error free and innocent as angels. In fact I criticized (not insulted) a moderator here which resulted in a rash of flames in PM. And there's no way to block flames from moderators.

However, it has since transpired that neither the text you quoted, nor the paper that you cited had anything to do with the original question. As Doc Al has said above, it is on you to provide a valid reference that agrees with your position on this matter.

Your claim that this is my personal theory is bogus. You're confusing a personal theory with a possible incorrect application of a theorem.


The OP has his question answered and that's all I care about. I can't help if people read into what I said something that I never said, implied nor meant. I said that the MMX experiment was inconclusive because of the extinction theorem and I quoted French because of that theorem. Mostly to show that it only takes a very short distance for the light to travel.

If you cannot, then it is a personal theory and, as such, not permitted here at PF.

Doc was off base. He was not focusing on the extinction theorem. He was too focused on the text which I quoted the extinction theorem from.

By the way, if you have a problem with me personally then why didn't you send this to me in a PM? I'm getting tired of people trying to force somethning into something I never said nor held to be true. Its very irritating.

Now please stop trying to imply that I was saying that French was using the extinction theorem to discuss the MMX. I wrote

The flaw has to do with what is known as the extinction theorem. This is mentioned in Special Relativity, by A.P. French, Norton Press, (1968). pages 127-128.

Now stop trying to make that into something its not! Sheesh!

Pete

 

[cristo]

Of course. I also said I'd make it available to anyone who'd want to read it too.

I'd prefer if you didn't do that, since that would be infringing on copyright law.

Who said it was? People are reading too much into what I wrote. Please pay attention to what I write rather than what you think I was trying to imply.

I'll just quote you here:

I think I read somewhere that there's a flaw in the Michaelson Morley experiment. Is this true?

Yes. It is true. The flaw has to do with what is known as the extinction theorem. This is mentioned in Special Relativity, by A.P. French, Norton Press, (1968). pages 127-128.

You used the book to point out a "flaw" in the MM experiment relating to the extinction theorem, and then used the paper to back this up. Thus, you were using the paper to back up your "flaw" in the MM experiment.

I referred to that paper because find it very hard to believe that someone would say It is concluded that there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity if they actually believed that the MMX results were valid. Are you telling me that this was lost on you?

If you think this, then you have completely misread the paper. As I said above, the paper is only talking about classes of experiments "in which light sources were in motion with respect to the measuring equipment." Thus, when the author draws his conclusions, he is only talking about experiments in which the source is moving relative to the observer: i.e. not the MM experiment.

I never never never said that the author was addressing the MMX in either the text or the paper. Why are you ignoring that fact too? I had strongly emphasized that I might be wrong because of the fact that its quite possible that when the author of that article, i.e. Fox, said "It is concluded that there may not exist any sure evidence..." he may just have been knowingly ignoring the MMX. I find that hard to believe, hence my quoting on that comment and that comment only.

Well, as I have said, you should read the paper again.

Notice that Russ stated that this was to clarify something. He didn't post it as his personal opinion. I'm curious as to why nobody is jumping down Russ's throat about this too? Is it because he's one of the "gang" and you don't contradict your fellow mentors?

There is a fundamental difference here: Russ was asking you to clarify something that you had posted after reading the book. That is, he was asking you to clarify whether the previous comments set this in context such that it had anything to do with the said topic. You are asking people to clarify your own personal opinions on an article. It is not a matter of "ganging together," but more a matter of common sense.

I found it very irritating that the OP got flak for not asking his question in a "politically correct way" (or however you'd like to phrase it). Just because a person doesn't know how to ask for what he is looking for should never be used to prohibit them from asking a question. Responses will almost always help the OP reformulate their question better.

It has nothing to do with whether a question was "politically correct" or not, but that we try to get members to phrase questions in an unambiguous way. If, say, a member has read something and wishes to ask questions about it, then it only makes sense to ask where he read it, so that we can see what he wants answering, and not speculate wildly. I do not agree with your point that any response will help the OP since, in this case, the responses he has been given are highly confusing!

Several regular posters here have sent me PMs of about this explaining to me that they don't appreciate the way moderators handle these things. So don't get the impression that all the moderators are error free and innocent as angels. In fact I criticized (not insulted) a moderator here which resulted in a rash of flames in PM. And there's no way to block flames from moderators.

I you have received an insulting, or flaming PM from any member, then you should report it, by way of forwarding it to a mentor or an administrator and asking the staff to look into the matter. If you don't tell us there is a problem, how can we know? I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who keep quiet when they receive such a message, but then dredge it up months later to try and make a point.Anyway, I think it's time this thread is put to rest, since the OP has not returned to it. If he wishes to ask another related question, then he should feel free to start another thread on the topic.