[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Why the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot detect ether?

The experiment was performed, all inside earth, inside the gravitational field of earth. Thus, everything inside moves as one with earth motion. It is like being inside in a jumbo jet plane. All movement inside the jet moves as one with the jet, meaning. a passenger moves forward, backward, sideward, inside the flying jet moves as one with the jet, though individual movement inside the jet is identifiable, is measurable. Such, too, is light, inside the gravitational field of earth. Light is electro-magnetic, so does the gravitational field of earth. Thus, electro-magnetic CONSTANT light is the same inside the electro-magnetic gravitational field, and moves as one with such electro-magnetic gravitational field of earth. Thus, there is no ripple of ether inside the gravitational field but if the experiment extend from earth to outer space, outside earth gravitational field influence., ripple of ether could have been detected, just like air is detectable from outside the jumbo jet...


Jsaldea12

2.16.10

[Bored chemist]

Since the earth's gravitational field is infinite (or at least as big as the observable universe) your idea makes no sense.
Also, the earth is in orbit round the sun so we are clearly in its gravitational field. The same applies to the Moon.
If the ether were "stuck" to the local gravitational fields it would still have shown up in the experiment because it would have followed the combined field of the sun, moon, and earth.

Also keep posting things like "Light is electro-magnetic, so does the gravitational field of earth. Thus, electro-magnetic CONSTANT light is the same inside the electro-magnetic gravitational field, and moves as one with such electro-magnetic gravitational field of earth."
without giving any evidence and in spite of the fact that it has been pointed out that your ideas are plain wrong.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Earth gravitational field is not infinite..its territorial influence is up to its binding, for instance, to the gravitational field of the sun. Everything inside such territorial  limit obeys the orbit of earth and its gravitational field around the sun. thus, a satellite that speeds inside that orbit of earth, follows that motion of that orbit, though such satellite has its own speed inside the orbit. It is like the total speed of earth around milky way computed by NASA as follows: speed of orbit of earth around the sun, plus the speed of orbit of the sun around milky way.. the total speed of earth is around 500,000 miles per hour.

Why gravitational field of earth is electro-magnetic, please permit me to refer you to posted, “Why is gravity all attraction toward earth”/


Jsaldea12

2.16.10

[Bored chemist]

For heaven's sake learn some science and logic.
No I will not permit you to refer me to rubbish as an explanation.
I pointed out that not all gravity is towards the earth so it's just plain silly to try to use it to prove anything.
This was sorted out by Cavendish a couple of hundred years ago.

You assert that the earth's field is finite, but you cannot possibly have any evidence for that. On the other hand I pointed out that the combination of the fields of the 3 bodies is always changing.
Anything that was "stuck" to local gravity would keep changing. If the "ether" was dragged round then the experiment would have found it.

I'm not sure what you seek to prove by talking about the earth's speed.
All speed is relative so it's not going to make a difference.
What you have not taken account of seems to be that, while speed is relative, acceleration isn't.

At best you seem to be rehashing an argument called "ether drag"
It is already dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

I never mention, whatsoever, the word "rubbish". Why should I do that?

But kindly permit me to refer you to latest postings on "Red- shifts of All galaxies: one evidence of spacetime". Some of the answers are posted there.


jsaldea12

2.17.10

[Bored chemist]

I used the word rubbish to describe your idea that gravity always heads towards earth, because it doesn't.

[Paradigmer]

Why the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot detect ether?

Michelson-Morley experiment postulated a luminiferous aether that is static.

With the assumption that a celestial object moving in a static medium of luminiferous aether would experience a drag, an aether wind should be detectable. Earth revolves at approximately 30 km/s around Sun, the Sun revolves at approximately 232 km/s around the Galactic center of Milky Way, therefore Earth moving in this static medium should show a significant aether wind with a lower limit of approximately (232-30) 202 km/s and an upper limit of approximately (232+30) 262km/s, or between (552-232-30) 290 km/s and (552+232+30) 814km/s if the movement of Milky Way in space relative to Cosmic microwave background at approximately 552 km/s is considered. If there is such an aether wind at all it should be easily detected with the interferometer. However, in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such expectations were not detected at all.

However, this is merely a null hypothesis with a null result that static luminiferous aether does not exist. It had only concluded that the postulated aether wind was not found with the assumption of luminiferous aether is a static medium. Neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproven the aether hypothesis, it was the others (such as Oliver Heaviside) who had made the conclusion that aether does not exist at all.

The quote below would be suitable for this place at this point of time.

   

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan

Watch a video clip on simulating Michelson-Morley experiment in aether wind that illustrates if aether wind is present, it would be detected. I hope this would help.

[Bored chemist]

I often wonder how Carl Sagan got to sleep without worrying about the tiger in his bedroom. Obviously, there was no evidence for the tiger but
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” .

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

That aether is luminiferous was a misconception of the olden time. What it really mean is that light is luminiferous. Light is luminiferous when it comes in contact with matter, mass, but it is not luminiferous in contact with supra-supra thin no mass aether, which is no difference from no mass spacetime of Dr. Einstein.Thus, when the length of light, which is 186,000 miles  contacts matter per second, it becomes luminiferous. In outer space, light has no matter to contact with.

Several years way back, it announced that frame dragging of spacetime of orbit of earth around the sun was detected. Let me expand: aether and spacetime are one and the same. That spacetime frame dragging is no other than aether wind dragging...

..let me correct myself: the Michelson-morley experiment was conducted on earth, on small area of earth., thus, everything on that small area, interferometer, observer, light moves as one in that small area. Why? Because electro-magnetic light propagates on electro-magnetic gravitational field of earth, and on that small area, ALL inside that area move as one. Light is like passenger in jet plane that wherever the passenger walks, makes no difference: the passenger inside moves as one with the jet plane. But light is constant, thus, it makes no difference where light is directed, it is the same as it moves as one with the gravitational field in that area.


Jsaldea12

2.18.10

[Bored chemist]

Did you read what I said about "ether drag"?
It doesn't work.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Unless ome accepts that aether and spacetime are both one banana, nothing I can do to convince otherwise., But,  reiterating,  the main, the primary reason why aether and spacetime were thought of different is because aether was conceived of as being luminiferous while spacetime is not. I explain that the old concept of aether as lumibiferous  is a misconception because what is luminiferous is light when it comes in contact with matter which has mass,light is not luminiferous in contact with supra-supra thin no-mass spacetime or ether which is not luminiferous..

..that detected  frame dragging of skein of spacetime on orbit of earth around the sun after 10 years patient observation,is no other than non-luminiferous aether which is spacetime itself...




jsaldea12

2.18.10

[Paradigmer]

I often wonder how Carl Sagan got to sleep without worrying about the tiger in his bedroom. Obviously, there was no evidence for the tiger but
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” .

Carl Sagan was not a paranoid, as an atheist he had been rational and his work was always based on logical empiricism. Here is another quote from this very renowned astronomer:

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is
than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

The M-M experiment thingy was not like it had been proven beyond all reasonable doubts, such as the motion of Earth was based on logical positivism that it is an immutable fact it revolves around the Sun.

On unsolved problems with discernable anomalies, Richard Feynman had his say:

"In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar." - Richard Feynman

I think there is a chance that jsaldea12 could be making his last laugh on this issue.   

[Paradigmer]

Unless ome accepts that aether and spacetime are both one banana, nothing I can do to convince otherwise., But,  reiterating,  the main, the primary reason why aether and spacetime were thought of different is because aether was conceived of as being luminiferous while spacetime is not. I explain that the old concept of aether as lumibiferous  is a misconception because what is luminiferous is light when it comes in contact with matter which has mass,light is not luminiferous in contact with supra-supra thin no-mass spacetime or ether which is not luminiferous..

In the classical physics era, luminiferous aether was defined as the light-bearing aether, it was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light. There was no suggestion at all that it was luminous; what you have mentioned above is unfounded. Carl Sagan famously said: "We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”

You are not helping your main posit if you mix speculation as fact in your reasoning; the hypothetical luminiferous aether was clearly defined for what it is. 

..that detected  frame dragging of skein of spacetime on orbit of earth around the sun after 10 years patient observation,is no other than non-luminiferous aether which is spacetime itself...

Can you substantiate the above claim by you, a link to it would suffice. I hope you are not talking about the Gravity Probe B project that had went on for two decades until its plug was eventually pulled, it was still not conclusive for the miniscule frame dragging-effect those relativists had set out to detect in space.

[Bored chemist]

"Unless ome accepts that aether and spacetime are both one banana,"
The ancient Greeks were most upset when they discovered irrational numbers. Just think how much your idea could have helped them.
There is no pair of integers a and b such that (A divided by B) squared =2
Unless one accepts that this pair of numbers  and my right foot are the same thing. My foot exists so there is a rational root of 2.

Simple.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

"In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar." - Richard Feynman

Do you agree?


jsaldea12

2.19.10

[Bored chemist]

You should keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
You cannot expect to find anything new by using bad logic and false premises like
"Why is gravity all attraction toward earth".
Real science involves discarding ideas that do't tally with the real world so you should have dumped that one weeks ago when I first pointed out that it's simply not true.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Okay, bored chemist, what I am saying is not supported by fact? Let me reiterate: the main reason why aether is conceived  different from spacetime is that aether  had been, has been conceived,  as luminiferous while spacetime is not. I have explained that it is light that is luminiferous and visible from its source and matter it comes in contact with. Outer space has make up of  NO-mass, supra-supra thin skein that light is simply passing through with no particle to contact with…but when light comes in contact with particle water- tail of  comet, several million miles long, such tail is made visible/luminiferous. Why? because light impact on contact on  such tail is CONCENTRATED 186,000 miles length  per sec.. Thus, the old concept that aether is luminiferous is wrong. Aether is non-luminiferous,as a FACT, non-luminiferous aether is one and same banana with spacetime of Dr. Einstein. Not supported? Dr. Einstein himself, changed mind, revived aether, in a speech of 1920, if you can read between the line: he means impliedly aether and spacetime are one and same banana.

The posted: “Unifying aether, spacetime, superstring, cosmological constant dark energy” can give further clarification.

Jsa;ldea12

219.10

[Paradigmer]

Okay, bored chemist, what I am saying is not supported by fact? Let me reiterate: the main reason why aether is conceived  different from spacetime is that aether  had been, has been conceived,  as luminiferous while spacetime is not. I have explained that it is light that is luminiferous and visible from its source and matter it comes in contact with. Outer space has make up of  NO-mass, supra-supra thin skein that light is simply passing through with no particle to contact with…but when light comes in contact with particle water- tail of  comet, several million miles long, such tail is made visible/luminiferous. Why? because light impact on contact on  such tail is CONCENTRATED 186,000 miles length  per sec.. Thus, the old concept that aether is luminiferous is wrong. Aether is non-luminiferous,as a FACT, non-luminiferous aether is one and same banana with spacetime of Dr. Einstein. Not supported? Dr. Einstein himself, changed mind, revived aether, in a speech of 1920, if you can read between the line: he means impliedly aether and spacetime are one and same banana.

The posted: “Unifying aether, spacetime, superstring, cosmological constant dark energy” can give further clarification.

jsaldea12, you do have to make a distinction between what is your opinion and what is a fact.

If you could provide me the link that proves what you said the evidence for frame-dragging effect was conclusively found in space through ten years of observation, then that could lead to a scientific fact of significance. Else, the speculation by those relativists were merely their opinions, although it might be construed in their best educated guess that could be based on a most probable hypothesis agreed by all those scientists who did that experiment.

[Ron Hughes]

Why they did not find an aether is because it is not required for light to propagate and the reason can be seen here.  http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/22596-photon-creation.html#post292968  , and here  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28667.0

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Einstein revived aether, call it a new aether,.."that it is impossible to think of space without aether on which light propagates.."

Please see NASA "Frame dragging of spacetime on orbit of earth".


jsaldea12

2.23.10