Why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't prove relativity necessary

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter James Jackson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
9 replies · 3K views
James Jackson
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Wow, just reading through some of the stuff at crack.net, and came across this amazing insight:

Even earlier, the Michelson-Morley experiment created the need for relativity. It failed to find an etheric medium in space for conducting light waves. In fact, it failed to produce any result. A looked-for diffraction pattern did not appear. The absence of a result is not a valid basis for conclusions in science. Any number of explanations exist for the result.

I can begin to see how we get these people and their amazing crackpot theories appearing... You should see the copy I've got of a 'theory' that got sent to my department a few months ago. Perhaps I should scan it and put it up. Some choice quotes:

"Planck has to jurisdiction here", "In this model there is only one clock, no need for relativity", "The rest of physics ensues forthwith" etc. Amazing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
James Jackson said:
Even earlier, the Michelson-Morley experiment created the need for relativity. It failed to find an etheric medium in space for conducting light waves. In fact, it failed to produce any result. A looked-for diffraction pattern did not appear. The absence of a result is not a valid basis for conclusions in science. Any number of explanations exist for the result.
Well, not quite - the logic goes as follows:

Hypothesis: If there is an ether, this experiment will detect it via an interference pattern.
Experimental data: no interference pattern witnessed.
Conclusion: This experiment does not support the hypothesis that there is an ether and adds constraints to what an ether may "look like" if it does exist.

However, yes - relativity crackpottery is an interesting phenomena.
 
It's not crackpottery. There's a legitimate worldwide concerted effort on the part of mainstream physicists to keep their groundbreaking ideas from flourishing.
 
juvenal said:
It's not crackpottery. There's a legitimate worldwide concerted effort on the part of mainstream physicists to keep their groundbreaking ideas from flourishing.

And as with any quackery, simply by stating something without any valid evidence is considered to be sufficient enough.

Zz.
 
I forgot to mention the evil energy companies that are conspiring to keep perpetual motion machines off the market.
 
juvenal said:
I forgot to mention the evil energy companies that are conspiring to keep perpetual motion machines off the market.
My sarcasm detector appears to be malfunctioning - could you clarify and tell me if you're serious here?
 
russ_watters said:
My sarcasm detector appears to be malfunctioning - could you clarify and tell me if you're serious here?
It's the comedy stylings of juvenal and ZapperZ. I hear they're doing Vegas this summer.
 
I'm in dead earnest.:smile:

(Instead of being an Elvis, Barry White, or Elton John impersonator in Vegas, I could be a crank impersonator).
 
Last edited:
juvenal said:
I'm in dead earnest.:smile:

(Instead of being an Elvis, Barry White, or Elton John impersonator in Vegas, I could be a crank impersonator).
For tickets to the comedy stylings of juvenal and ZapperZ (Who perform onstage as Phizzy and Cranky) call your local Ticketmaster today!
 
'This Physics is sound, I just need someone to write it in equations;