Michelson - Morley Experiment Revisited

[geistkiesel]

i never stated what I believe

however: 'I believe there is NOT an aether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise. is Not very scientific either... is it

energia- The MM experiments were not a "null" finding, merely 1/20 (or so) of waht the "standard nodel" pedicted at the time. Likewise, Dayton Miller performed a series of MM experiments coming to basically the same conmcluison, with muvh more. So the claim earlier that the measurement of the speed of lighy will be the same regardless of the frame from which measured is not supported by scientific data, in fact the opposite was determined.

"Simultaneity" as a derivation of fundamental postulates of SR are shown to be fatally and unambiguously flawed as demonstrated in the 1/2 page link below.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/

 

[flash007]

This is my analogy of SR and its relation to the "aether" (AS posted above there are many names so i call it aether in quotes)
Imagine a large body of water this is the "aether" or base energy. Now imgine tht ice crystals are forming in the middle creating a ball of ice and call these ice crystals Matter/particles. Both are made up of the same substance but one has a differing energy level. All matter in the universe is ultimatly energy.

Now imagine that water has ripples long ripples for long wave radio waves and short ripples for x rays and the waves can vary in height. Now we all know that the electromagnetic wave is constant so all waves will travel at the same speed.
Now imagine a ship in the water as it sails through the ripples. The ripples are still coming to the ship as a fixed constant rate it dosent change no matter how fast or slow the ship goes. No matter what direction the ship sails the ripples are coming towards the ship at the same rate.
Now imagine another ship traveling at a different speed. If you was on board this ship the waves hitting the ship is still traveling at the same speed as you would observe as you would on the other ship.

Now using this analogy the existence of such an "aether" can be demonstrated and does not interfere with SR

 

[GRQC]

and according to SR - light speed is a constant, which would instantly invalidate the MM experiment,

Why does the constancy of the speed of light invalidate MM?

 

[energia]

because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

 

[GRQC]

because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

I know the answer to my question -- I wanted to see if you understood it as well, but I don't think you do.

You should go back and read up on how interference patterns are created, and in fact on the MM experiment in general. There is a difference between no interference pattern, and a shifted interference pattern.

Yes, they saw a null result, but not as you describe it. In any event, the constancy of c does not *invalidate* the MM experiment -- it simply places severe constraints on what you will see. That's the way physics works. In most cases, theories place constraints on experiments, rather than invalidate them, be it Michelson Morley, advance of perihelion, Lorentz / Equivalence Principle violation, deviations from Newtonian gravity due to large extra dimensions, etc...

 

[energia]

I promise you, I am aware of how light interference patterns are created

Thomas Young set the tone for the wave theory of light with his double slit experiment - which clearly showed interference patterns caused by angular shifted light waves

I'm also aware of the premise behind the Michelson - Morley experiemnt
since I clearly and concisely posted the premise at the heading of this topic

I'm not making a strawman argument

I understand the principles very well

 

[russ_watters]

however: 'I believe there is NOT an aether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise. is Not very scientific either... is it

Who said that? If I see an experiment that requires an ether to explain, I'll accept that there is an ether. You're the only one here who is saying you'll not even consider evidence to be relevant unless it proves or absolutely disproves (an impossibility) your belief in the existence of an ether and in the absence of evidence choose to believe there is one.

Energia, only one of us is operating on belief here. The other is operating on science.

Now imagine a ship in the water as it sails through the ripples. The ripples are still coming to the ship as a fixed constant rate it dosent change no matter how fast or slow the ship goes. No matter what direction the ship sails the ripples are coming towards the ship at the same rate.
Now imagine another ship traveling at a different speed. If you was on board this ship the waves hitting the ship is still traveling at the same speed as you would observe as you would on the other ship.

Now using this analogy the existence of such an "aether" can be demonstrated and does not interfere with SR.

The analogy you suggest doesn't fit with reality! In reality, the speed of waves on water relative to a ship depends on the speed of the ship! Ironic, but I guess then the analogy really does work fine, lol.

energia, GRQC's point was that even with a constant C, they were still expecting to find an ether - in fact, their experiment required a constant C in order to accurately measure the speed of the ether wind (if C wasn't constant, they still could have detected it, but maybe not quantified its speed).

 

[energia]

no russ - I am not operating on belief - I'm operating scientifically

I never stated that I believe in the existence of aether

in fact I don't believe in the existence aether

however, I don't disbelieve in the existence aether

it doesn't matter to me whether aether exists or not

what matters to me is knowing the true nature of light propagation
my only interest is knowing the truth - nothing more

what would the implications be for science if a supreme alien intellegence simply gave us the complete absolute truth of the nature and physics of the universe

theoretical physicists would be out of a job for one
students of physics would simply have to memorize the facts

on one hand it would be the ultimate gift to humanity

on the other hand all scientific research would grind to a halt
and that would be very boring

but I want to know anyway

 

[russ_watters]

no russ - I am not operating on belief - I'm operating scientifically

I never stated that I believe in the existence of aether

in fact I don't believe in the existence aether

however, I don't disbelieve in the existence aether

it doesn't matter to me whether aether exists or not

what matters to me is knowing the true nature of light propagation
my only interest is knowing the truth - nothing more

Well that's just it - the vast majority of physicists long ago abandoned the idea of an ether, but you're putting quite a bit of effort into it. Clearly, the way you are approaching the problem is different than the way most physicists do.

 

[energia]

clearly the way you are approaching the problem is different than the way most physicists do.

yes, I agree, especially since most physicists don't approach the problem at all
but instead ignore or rather dismiss the existence of the problem

since The Special Theory works just fine without any mention of an aether

there are 3 possibilities:

1. no aether exists and EM radiation propagates through the interaction of electric and magnetic fields alone

2. aether exists as a medium through which lightwaves propagate

3. aether exists as the fabric of spacetime and has little or nothing to do with light propagation, but possibly gravity propagation

 

[GRQC]

3. aether exists as the fabric of spacetime and has little or nothing to do with light propagation, but possibly gravity propagation

But wait -- now you want the aether to have nothing to do with propagation of light, but instead gravity? Note, by the way, that this idea is vaguely similar to the ghost condensate idea formed recently by Arkani-Hamed et al. -- i.e. a non/weakly-interacting fluid which fills the universe and serves as a modification to gravitational interactions at large distances or long time eras. However, the ghost condensate doesn't dictate how gravity propagates, only how it evolves at a function of "epoch" in the universe.

The problem people have with these posts is that the discipline is plagued by non-physicists trying to reshape turn-of-the-century physics -- except that they're working with 19/20th century, instead of 20/21st century. Believe it or not, a lot of people have probably thought about these issues before.

May I asked if you are versed in the more modern theories of relativity, or are you only concerned with what happened 90 years ago? I guess you still haven't explained *why* you have a problem with the existence (or rather, non-existence) of the aether? Although judging by your last post you just seem to want there to be something called the "aether", irrespective of what it is (which thus is unrelated to the MM experiment in the first place).

 

[DrChinese]

yes, I agree, especially since most physicists don't approach the problem at all
but instead ignore or rather dismiss the existence of the problem

There is no problem to ignore. As you mention, SR operates fine without any assumption regarding the existence of the ether. No experiment has indicated there is an ether to explain. Everything works fine without an ether as well. So why should anyone pay attention to something which merits no attention?

Fact: MM places limits on the nature of the ether (as pointed out previously).
Fact: Inside those limits, there still does not appear to be evidence of an ether.
Fact: There is no evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny either, and I see no reason to chide physicists for ignoring or dismissing that subject.

If you can conceive of a measurable effect which the ether would predict - and current theory cannot account for - then by all means share with us.

 

[russ_watters]

yes, I agree, especially since most physicists don't approach the problem at all but instead ignore or rather dismiss the existence of the problem

But that's just it- there is no problem and you know why:

since The Special Theory works just fine without any mention of an aether

So that again brings me back to wondering why you put so much effort into a non-issue when there are lots of actual problems that physics needs to deal with (like unification).

 

[energia]

But wait -- now you want the aether to have nothing to do with propagation of light

I never stated what I want or believe aether to be
in fact I've already stated that I neither believe nor disbelieve in aether

I simply stated the 3 options that are possible

the last being an aether which consitutes the fabric of spacetime
and has nothing to do with light propagation
yet propagates gravity - which I will point out does not violate GR

in fact aether in any form does not violate Relativity Theory

I will repeat my objective once again
which is simply to get at the truth

 

[geistkiesel]

The aether returns

There is no problem to ignore. As you mention, SR operates fine without any assumption regarding the existence of the ether. No experiment has indicated there is an ether to explain. Everything works fine without an ether as well. So why should anyone pay attention to something which merits no attention?

Fact: MM places limits on the nature of the ether (as pointed out previously).
Fact: Inside those limits, there still does not appear to be evidence of an ether.
Fact: There is no evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny either, and I see no reason to chide physicists for ignoring or dismissing that subject.

If you can conceive of a measurable effect which the ether would predict - and current theory cannot account for - then by all means share with us.

The MM experiments later performed by Dayton Miller found a wave shift of approximately 1/20 of that expected, if affected by the aether at the time the experiments were conducted. Now in your frame of reference does the claimed "null" result of he MM/Miller experiments equate with the 1/20 wave length shift actually observed?

 

[geistkiesel]

because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

Check the experimental records Energia. There was a recorded wave shift of 1/20 expected by the "standard model" at the time (reproduced by Dayton Miller). Somehow the modern theorists, a very clever lot, mind you, have been able to determine that 1/20 = 0. Wow, and I thought I was smart.

 

[russ_watters]

Check the experimental records Energia. There was a recorded wave shift of 1/20 expected by the "standard model" at the time (reproduced by Dayton Miller). Somehow the modern theorists, a very clever lot, mind you, have been able to determine that 1/20 = 0. Wow, and I thought I was smart.

This is wrong, as addressed in the other thread.

 

[DrChinese]

The MM experiments later performed by Dayton Miller found a wave shift of approximately 1/20 of that expected, if affected by the aether at the time the experiments were conducted. Now in your frame of reference does the claimed "null" result of he MM/Miller experiments equate with the 1/20 wave length shift actually observed?

The hypothesized result was not observed. Pretty simple. And regardless of the subsequent refinements to this experiment, it still added substantially to the body of knowledge at the time - it was useful. Even if it had elements which were 'messy' to you in some respect.

After all, Einstein's SR matched the results of MM a lot more than prevailing ether theory did at the time. Certainly useful. Whether Einstein know about MM or not (I assume he did), he certainly knew that evidence for an ether was lacking.

At any rate, I challenge anyone to use an MM-type experiment to determine the velocity of the Earth through space. That was the original premise of such an experiment. I think a null result is a reasonable conclusion, but I could alternately accept that the actual results yield no useful information about our velocity.

 

[setAI]

to me- the aether/relativity debate isn't really a debate at all because they are simply different subjects!- Relativity- as with all background independent field theories- simply operate and don't need to explain the field in folk-physical terms- tht is impose metaphores on their dynamics- but that superfluid/aether/plasmic dynamism DOES exist- but it isn't mathematically important [or even existent! it simply doesn't apply- purely memetic modeling for monkeys]-

this doesn't reduce the importance or insight of Aether- I use the term often [in my own perverse way] - it just properly defines the concept as something outside of physics and part of aesthetics and metaphysics-


___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[jammieg]

An experiment I hope to try this summer for my own sanity

If the aether is real then passing a negative charge through the middle of a large enough vacuum should cause a pocket of residual positive aether vacuum pressure to remain for a small amount of time and firing an electron near that area would result in a bending of it's path to account for the positive aether pocket, and degaussing the apparatus would result in no bending of the electron's flight path. Another similar one would be to degauss the Debroglie apparatus after each electron emission to see if they then acted like bullets instead of waves, but then the residual magnetism could be in the apparatus and not the aether, or it could be that they just act like waves which is most likely but for what cause?
Or maybe I'll just dismiss all the helpful comments of others and use my "thought laboratory".

 

[geistkiesel]

Michelson-Morely Experiments : Misused/misquoted by Current SR Theorists

OK.

Since the MM experiment was performed about the time of Einstein's birth, and there are claims that Einstein did not even know of the MM result why do you even mention Einstein or SR. Neither have anything to do with how MM experiment was performed or the interpretation of the results. If you really want to discuss MM why don't you?

I do not get a feel from your posts, what the trouble with the MM was just what was wrong with it? Please be specific and, as you, yourself requested, stick to the topic.

First, the MM results were noit null as reported, rather a value of 1/20 of the expected wave shift value as determined by those predicting the 'speed' of the Earth through space [and the aether]. The MM results were duplicated by Daytom Miller in the 20s and 30s. Third, to say AE vever heard of MM before publishing any relativity papers is insginificant and only goes to the character of AE, if true or false, nothing else.

An added bonus: The famous 'eclipse" experiments of circa 1919-20 re Eddington, were a fraud. Telescopes with a resolutuon orders of magnitude greater than the necessay resolution to measure he affect of gravity v light bending were used.

 

[geistkiesel]

I do not wish to discuss Einstein or SR

this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existence of aether

Einstein and SR were only mentioned briefly, in a relevant manner



the first statement is historical fact - the later is a question regarding the abandonment of aether theory on a faulty premise

both of which are relevant to the topic

most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticize poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging

Energia,
MM experiments were not null. The results were merely 1/20 of that predicted by those predicting the velocity of the Earth through space. What if the reality was the speed prediciton of the point of the MM experiments was off by a factor of 20? Then MM unambiguously predicts the correct wave shift through the aether doesn't it?

 

[geistkiesel]

Yes, I know: and that is its basic flaw. Mathematically, sure - but how many assumptions do you have to pile on top of each other before deciding you've built a house of cards? First you assume there is an ether, then you assume it moves in such a way that every experiment ever devised to find it (or that could be dependent on it) has failed to find it. You don't consider that absurd?

A great similar example is the epicycles of Ptolmey. By assuming enough epicycles (dozens), you can eventually build a model that fits reasonably well with the observed motion of the planets. However, like ether theory, you can't derive it from first principles and you can't use it to make any predictions. So what good is it? That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories? Its your thread - I've only responded to the things you mentioned: I focused in on your statements about Einstein because they are revealing about your purpose and particular bias (note: everyone has a bias). If you want to talk about ether "theories" and how they could/could not work and how to test them, do it! (looks like flash007 is getting it started...)

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this: Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.

Sure, Russ_waters, just discard all the experimental evidence and theoretical discussions critical of SR. MM results were not null (as verified by Dayton Miller in the 20s - 30s), merely 1/20 of that suspected based on the suspected velocity of the planet through the cosmos. Assuming the predictions were off by a factor of 20, MM actually proves the aether, doesn't it?

Why do I get this nagging feeling that most, if not all of SR theorists are defending SR as they do out of a sense of a perceived threat to professional security considerations?

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, Russ_waters, just discard all the experimental evidence and theoretical discussions critical of SR. MM results were not null (as verified by Dayton Miller in the 20s - 30s), merely 1/20 of that suspected based on the suspected velocity of the planet through the cosmos. Assuming the predictions were off by a factor of 20, MM actually proves the aether, doesn't it?

You keep saying this and ignoring the response. Should I even bother explaining it to you again?

 

[energia]

how are you arriving at this 1/20 result?
i was under the impression the result was null

can you please post the source of the data?

 

[Icarus]

At the risk of injecting yet another towering out-of-control ego into a debate already over-run with them, I would like to directly address the concerns energia originally raised, while trying to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about why he raised them:

Quite frankly, energia, I am rather confused by your interpretation of what went on with MM. You complain that it was based on one idea without regard to others? Do you not understand the scientific process? Let's review it:

1) Make a bunch of observations.
2) Try to find a pattern in the observations. Call your pattern a "hypothesis".
3) Use your hypothesis to guess the outcome of future observations.
4) Perform the observations and compare the results with the guesses.
5) If the guesses were correct, go back to step 3.
6) If the guesses were slightly wrong, modify your hypothesis to correct them, then go back to step 3.
7) If your guesses were very wrong, reject your hypothesis & go back to steps 1 and 2.

7/1) This is exactly what happened with the MM experiment: According to Maxwell's (experimentally confirmed) equations, light is predicted to have a certain speed - without any mention of the speed of the observer. This is made the fact that Maxwell's equations do not conform to Galilean Relativity abundantly clear.
2) The hypothesis was made that some odd substance, called aether, was acting as a carrier for electromagnetism, just as water acts as a carrier of water waves, and that Maxwell's Equations are exactly true only within in reference frames at rest with respect to this aether. Since the planets did not seem to be losing any appreciable amount of energy while traveling, it was also hypothesized that ordinary matter does not interact appreciably with this aether, and as such, the Earth should be traveling with respect to it.
3) If you were to compare the speed of light in various directions, by these hypotheses, you would expect different values. By enough measurements you could eventually determine the velocity of that point on Earth through the aether.
4) M & M designed an apparatus to compare the speed of light in perpendicular directions. (I will not discuss the ability of this apparatus to do this - I am not sufficiently aware of its design and limitations to do so. I will say though that I am sure that the Physics community at the time was quite well aware of those limitations and were satisfied that the results were reasonably accurate.) Because the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun, and the spinning of the Earth, it was predicted that the speed of the Earth through the aether would be well within the apparatus' ability to measure. The experiment was performed, and no speed anywhere near that predicted was discovered.

** This represents the end of the MM experiment, so any flaw in it was already there - what follows is interpretation, and even if flawed, is NOT a flaw in the MM experiment. But I also argue that the interpretation was not flawed:

7) Because the result was greatly different from what was expected, both hypotheses, that Maxwell's equations are only true with respect to aether, and that the Earth travels through the aether, could not together be true.

Following MM, many different hypotheses were put forward, including the idea that the Earth dragged the local aether along with it as it traveled its orbit (MM was performed at different times to ensure the result was not just a fluke of chance - the experiment being performed just when the Earth was matching the aether movement in its orbit). Lorentz's transformation was another attempted modification of the hypothesis. None of them were particularly satisfactory to the community at the time. Not until that crazy German suggested that the speed of light actually was constant with respect to observer did a suggestion come forward that appeared to adequately explain all the observations at the time.

MM was not flawed. It did exactly what it was supposed to do: Test a theory to see if it was true. The theory it tested was not the whole idea of aether, but rather that the Earth was moving through it. It tested that theory, and gave evidence against it. The idea of aether in its entirety slowly passed out of popular opinion not because of MM, but because it was found to be unnecessary to explain observations. This does not say it is false - science fundamentally cannot ever prove anything to be true, and it can only prove things false if they directly contradict observation (so only specific predictions can be disproved). Since aether is a theory and can be adjusted, it will never directly contradict observation, and cannot be disproved. What it does say is that so far, aether has shown itself to be useless.

 

[geistkiesel]

MM link to non null result

Energia the link to MM

http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysicshttp://www.orgonelab.org/xphysics.htm.htm

This should get you started

geistkiesel

 

[geistkiesel]

1/20 of the predicted number.

You keep saying this and ignoring the response. Should I even bother explaining it to you again?

Whatever you say, or whatever i say, assuming the 1/20 number isn'y nopise, anmd neither you or i can provide a legitimate scientific model to explain the significance the fact of the reality of the expewrimental results whether significant in the support structure of SR, or not, the 1/20 ought not be used as the cannon ball of inormation exchange between dogmatists and their attackers.

Why, russ_watters are you so conistently in a defensive/attack mode when this kind of information is put before you. All of your analysis had no scienitific worth in determining what, if anything, the 1/20 number means. It sounds like that you would not want the 1/20 number to reflect a real ether state 5% of what the dogmatists predicted over 100 years ago, even if the aether has absolutely no relativity significance whatsoever. Just 'what if' russ'? Even if your curiosity factors are null on this subject is negating continued exploration by others any of your concern?, or for that matter, any of your business? If the aether is as inconsequential as you make it to be it sure appears some one has has pushed your 'defense of the standard model' button.
http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysicsht...physics.htm.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Whatever you say, or whatever i say, assuming the 1/20 number isn'y nopise, anmd neither you or i can provide a legitimate scientific model to explain the significance the fact of the reality of the expewrimental results whether significant in the support structure of SR, or not, the 1/20 ought not be used as the cannon ball of inormation exchange between dogmatists and their attackers.

Why on Earth would I want to assume that? That's the whole problem we mentors have with your ideas: in the absence of logic, evidence, and indeed, science itself, you assume whatever you want.

No. You can't assume that it wasn't noise.

PROVE IT.

It sounds like that you would not want the 1/20 number to reflect a real ether state 5% of what the dogmatists predicted over 100 years ago...

Just 'what if' russ'? Even if your curiosity factors are null on this subject is negating continued exploration by others any of your concern?[emphasis added]

Well that's just it: MM was over 100 years ago. has exploration continued since then? Which one of us keeps bringing up a 100 year old experiment and ignoring 100 years of newer (better) ones? Which one of us is clinging to 100+ year old dogma in the absence of evidence (indeed - in the face of a vast quantity of contradictory evidence)?

geistkiesel, turn your mirror around: you're looking at it backwards.

 

[russ_watters]

how are you arriving at this 1/20 result?
i was under the impression the result was null

can you please post the source of the data?

Yes, I would very much like to see it as well. I'm not optimistic that geistkiesel will ever post it.

 

[geistkiesel]

russ_watters: the eternal pessimist.

Yes, I would very much like to see it as well. I'm not optimistic that geistkiesel will ever post it.

This should get you started russ_watters.

Ye, of little faith.

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/m-morley.htm
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/Michelson-Morley.html
http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/dayton_miller.html
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/oneway/oneway.html
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm pre


Geistkiesel

 

[russ_watters]

This should get you started russ_watters.

Ye, of little faith.

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/m-morley.htm
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/Michelson-Morley.html
http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/dayton_miller.html
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/oneway/oneway.html
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm pre


Geistkiesel

Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.

 

[geistkiesel]

Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.

OK the papers don't have the original data, then on what scientific grounds do you insist that the MM results were null? What scientific data do you use russ_watters? scorn, derision, cynicism, scoffing, sniveling tantrum school yard crap is what you appear to use, but this is just my observation.

But you do have sufficient information to get the data don't you? Miller's paper is referenced. I would focus on the original paper of Dayton Miller, if you really want to know. Or you can keep up with your egotistic self-centered smugness, the easy way out for the mental sloth..

 

[geistkiesel]

Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.

Here is a hypothetical: Assume the 1/20 shist was real with an experimental error ~.0001. What would it mean in terms of the measure ment of the SOL, the aether, SR?

 

[russ_watters]

Here is a hypothetical: Assume the 1/20 shist was real with an experimental error ~.0001. What would it mean in terms of the measure ment of the SOL, the aether, SR?

Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh...duh?

OK the papers don't have the original data, then on what scientific grounds do you insist that the MM results were null? What scientific data do you use russ_watters? scorn, derision, cynicism, scoffing, sniveling tantrum school yard crap is what you appear to use, but this is just my observation.

M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.