Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: > >> I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that >> moves with respect to space yet SR >> >> uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be >> perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? >> > > The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at > this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time > contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or > 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that "the > geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1]" > is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that > there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. > > In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable > ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and > (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether > theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor > falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. > > The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently > can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid > evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's > most mature version of ether theory).
The Michelson & Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30 km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether... Read the Gezari paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector <http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818> for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly confirm Special Relativity... The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper, The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment <http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576> gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs. real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and careful experiments done by Miller. The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect about them. All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's time to start taking notice.
