I have no doubt on the aether 'testing' failure stuff. Didn't we send up some kind of 'evacuated lead balloon' some time ago to confirm some kind of 'curved space drag'? (gleaned from cleaning my car's windows with New Scientist) - none of this is about 'bringing back old physics'. I'll see what I can codge together, but will say again, for tonight, what I've put forward is about learning and how sound a philosophical base we can put science on - and perhaps later any role this has in actual science. In Socratus' context, I may be on about what we might make of the term 'hidden ether', without just dismissing it.
On 2 Jan, 21:33, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Einstein, Albert, et al, The > > Principle of Relativity (New York: Dover > > Publications) page 40 in my motheaten edition - on the > > reference you > > demand. Are we to take it you have taken up reading? > > ============ > G: > I don't have this book. Could you, pls, quote the few lines about > points A and B? I'm really interested. > ================== > Neil:> One experiment, amongst many on these 'dilettante' lines > > was this: > > (J. G, Small and R. E. Phelps) - a 'new' > > version of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1970s). Instead > > of > > comparing > > round-trip speeds, as the original experiment did, > > =============== > G: > There were no "round-trips" in MM experiment. It was supposed to > prove the Aether wind by sending, reflecting and comparing two > beams, one parallel and one perpendicular to the earth surface, > thus to the alleged wind. The experiment failed giving the C > identical in both directions (within experimental error) thus > killing the Aether hypothesis and providing first solid support > to the SR. All improved versions of the experiment failed to > prove the Aether and confirmed the invariance of C. > > Many new and fantastic things happen in science. Why bother about > obstinate trials to revive the Aether, or entangled acausality > allegedly demonstrated by Aspect, whose technologically impressing > experiment is totally meaningless. > > Cheers > Georges. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
