Michelson-Gale-Pearson Refutation of Stokes-Planck - Help

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter one_raven
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment of 1925 serves as a critical refutation of the Stokes-Planck theory regarding gravitational aether drag. The discussion highlights that the Stokes-Planck theory posits complete aether dragging near massive bodies, which is indistinguishable from both a complete dragging model and a non-aetheric model. Participants express confusion over the implications of the experiment and its relationship to the principles of General Relativity, emphasizing the need for clarity on how these theories interact.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment
  • Familiarity with the Stokes-Planck theory of gravitational aether drag
  • Basic knowledge of General Relativity principles
  • Concept of aether theories in classical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment on modern physics
  • Study the Stokes-Planck theory in detail and its historical context
  • Explore the principles of General Relativity and how they contradict aether theories
  • Examine the concept of aether drag and its relevance in contemporary physics discussions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the historical debates surrounding gravitational theories and their implications for modern physics.

one_raven
Messages
200
Reaction score
0
I'm hoping for some help in understanding how the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment in 1925 is held as a refutation of the Stokes-Planck theory of gravitational aether drag.

If I understand the Stokes-Planck theory correctly, complete dragging of the aether near a sufficiently massive body (diminishing at distance, in accordance to the inverse square law as it applies to gravitational force) would be essentially indistinguishable from a complete dragging model. Wouldn't it also be indistinguishable from a non-aetheric model?
Didn't Michelson-Gale-Pearson support that?

What am I missing?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This should be posted in the Special & General Relativity forum.
 
I wasn't sure, because the Stokes-Planck theory was a classical interpretation that pre-dated Relativity - and, if it were accepted, would have stood in opposition to Relativity.

Can I move it, or does a moderator have to?
 
Can a moderator move this to the Relativity sub-forum, please?
Maybe it will get a response there.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Geocentricism, could you comment on a conversation I had about it?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Graduate "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Graduate One unanswered question about Aether
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
Graduate Falsifications and constraints due to GW measurements
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Undergrad Band theory and qualitative character of bands
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate BRS: Random Comments on Some Recent PF Threads
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
12K
Graduate Max Tegmark, Lee Smolin-polite conversation at Peter's
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
8K
Graduate Misconceptions about expanding space
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Graduate How Do Various Theories Define Information Through Entropy?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
10K