[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:59:58 +0100
Dear Paul,
As I understand it there were two outcomes to this experiment, only one of
which is ever considered.
1 If the Earth moves (this is assumed) then there is no aether.
2 The Earth is stationary then is an aether.
Actually there was a result which agreed with a stationary Earth and a
revolving aether once every 24 hours. Because the priory assumption was that
the Earth moved then the tiny result was considered null. As we you have seen
on this forum the Earth moving assumption is exactly that - an assumption.
Check out the Miller interferometer experiment. I shall post another e-mail
about this experiment soon.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
Jack L
Since I've never really understood the MM experiment (indeed I am not so rash
as to claim that this has changed in any significant degree) I Gooled
'michalson morley' and after having my spelling corrected, I went to the first
of 220 000 hits -- the ubiquitous Wikipedia. I read the whole article -- not a
chore -- and I now have a better overview of the experiment and its place at
the start of a long line of similar experiments. This article is not a good
place to learn the technicalities of the experiment but I found it to be very
instructive in the philosophy of the experiment.
Some interesting points. Michelson won a Nobel Prize for this experiment in
1907 ie he was recognised. However the most interesting point of this exercise
was the fact that despite increasingly sensitive and accurate apparatus, no
evidence that an aether had been identified was found. The suggestion, so often
made, that MM proves the Earth to be stationary, so far from being conclusively
shown, was not even mentioned. As such a proof depends in fact upon the
presumption of the existence of an aether which cannot be shown, it seems then
that this view springs entirely from a non scientific base. My understanding is
that if an aether indeed does not exist, then this experiment says nothing at
all about whether the Earth moves or does not move.
Finally, while the experiment has a firm place in the history of science, it
is remembered for its failure to prove what it set out to prove. Additionally,
the experiment was designed to find evidence in support of a widely held
hypothesis. It was not designed to explain any anomaly or shortcoming in any
theory.
This is why Michelson and Morely et al are not scientific heroes.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on
all webmail accounts. Find out more.
Other related posts:
