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.