[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Aether or whatever

Subject: Re: Aether or whatever
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 23 Oct 2006 04:43:13 -0700
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
sean wrote:
> George Dishman wrote:
> > > No, that is wrong.
> > > The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no time
> > > measurements were involved.
> >
> > The light sent down one leg of known distance
> > produces a time reference for the measurement of
> > the speed of the other leg. It is perhaps easier
> > to see if you think of an MMX oriented first with
> > one leg north-south and the other east-west. Then
> > rotate the apparatus such that the north-south
> > leg is not moved (it is the axis of rotation) but
> > the other leg is now vertical. The time the light
> > takes along the north-south leg is a fixed reference
> > against which the time for the other beam can be
> > measured in units of fractions of a cycle of the
> > light. Of course that isn't possible in practice
> > because of gravity but it should help you grasp the
> > equivalence.
> >
> > > The proposed experiment is based on time
> > > measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.
> >
> > Using an interference technique allows time
> > measurements with much higher resolution than any
> > simple clock. Bottom line is that your proposal
> > is just a repeat of the MMX and we already know
> > the answer, U1 as measured above will be zero for
> > _all_ inertial frames.
> I would have thought both sides of the argument would have a problem
> disproving the other.

Not really, Gurcharn's suggestion is to perform an
experiment to measure anisotropy of the speed of
light using atomic clocks and a spacecraft. My point
is that it serves the same purpose as the MMX so
the result is already known. I think we should be able
to settle that quite easily.

> For instance if the refractive index of the suns
> atmosphere isnt sufficient to explain the amount of bending of light

What does that have to do with the Michelson-Moreley

> then what is the refractive index or density of the atmosphere at that
> point to which it is being compared? My guess is that this vital piece
> of information isnt known ...

Your guess is wrong. Craig Markwardt gave references
in a thread a year or two back on exactly that subject
if you want to dig it out.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>