Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Michelson Morley experiment
Message-ID: <215@frog.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 10:59:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.215
Posted: Mon Jul  1 10:59:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 04:37:37 EDT
References: <337@sri-arpa.ARPA>
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 24

> From:  ALBERS 
> 	In class, my physics instructor went over the Michelson
> Morley experiment in which they attempted to prove the existance of
> the 'ETHER'.  The instructor said that Michelson and Morley had come
> to the conclusion that if there were a ETHER that it could not be 
> detected by any known means.  My question is, why has the scientific
> community acted as if the experiment proved that the ETHER did not exist?
> 							Eric

The quick answer is that they came up with a better theory.  Being forced
to postulate an indetectable substance just to make things work doesn't make
most scientists happy.  The faintly longer answer is that, when this
experiment was taken into account, the final ether theory started to look like
the epicycles theory, and was much hairier than the agony of just refusing to
say "what" was "vibrating".

A better explanation can probably be found in print somewhere.


--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

This has been a public disservice announcement.