JGA@MIT-MC.ARPA (07/01/85)
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 85 22:26:44 edt
From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware at udel-louie.ARPA>
The instructor said that Michelson and Morley had come
to the conclusion that if there were a ETHER that it could not be
detected by any known means. My question is, why has the scientific
community acted as if the experiment proved that the ETHER did not exist?
I own the Brooklyn Bridge. My ownership cannot be demonstrated by any
known means, but nevertheless I do own the Brooklyn Bridge. Perhaps
you'd be interested in buying it?john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (07/01/85)
> From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> > In class, my physics instructor went over the Michelson > Morley experiment in which they attempted to prove the existance of > the 'ETHER'. The instructor said that Michelson and Morley had come > to the conclusion that if there were a ETHER that it could not be > detected by any known means. My question is, why has the scientific > community acted as if the experiment proved that the ETHER did not exist? > Eric The quick answer is that they came up with a better theory. Being forced to postulate an indetectable substance just to make things work doesn't make most scientists happy. The faintly longer answer is that, when this experiment was taken into account, the final ether theory started to look like the epicycles theory, and was much hairier than the agony of just refusing to say "what" was "vibrating". A better explanation can probably be found in print somewhere. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This has been a public disservice announcement.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (07/01/85)
This mention of the Micherlson-Morley experiment reminds me of something
in the latest (1985 summer) issue of The Skeptical Inquirer. Seems
there is a group of fundamentalist creationists (meaning even more
fundamentalist than your run-of-the-mill creationists) called the
Tychonian Society who adhere to geocentrism. (They note that there are
hundreds of Bible verses that imply a geocentric universe and nothing to
suggest heliocentrism.) From the name I assume they believe in Tycho's
"compromise" system with all the planets orbiting the Sun but the Sun
orbiting the Earth. No doubt Tycho's ideas were suppressed by highly
placed secular humanists...
Well, it seems this group thinks the reason M&M failed to find an ether
drift is that the Earth is stationary in the ether. So they want to
repeat the experiment - aboard the space shuttle. Stay tuned.
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarybillingt%nrl-css@sri-unix.ARPA (07/02/85)
From: Ray Billington <billingt@nrl-css> This is a test.
tse%nrl-css@sri-unix.ARPA (07/03/85)
From: Anthony Tse <tse@nrl-css> This is a test.
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/03/85)
In article <337@sri-arpa.ARPA> infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA writes: >From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> > > In class, my physics instructor went over the Michelson >Morley experiment in which they attempted to prove the existance of >the 'ETHER'. The instructor said that Michelson and Morley had come >to the conclusion that if there were a ETHER that it could not be >detected by any known means. My question is, why has the scientific >community acted as if the experiment proved that the ETHER did not exist? > > Eric There is an old tradition that can be expressed as; "If you can't tell, it don't matter" In other words, Why assume an ETHER when an experiment has proven that it cannot be detected by speed of light measurements. There is no experiment that I know of which can detect a luminiferous ether. Hence lets keep things simple... It doesn't exist! Furthermore there is no need for it to exist! Cheers, Fred Williams
hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull) (07/03/85)
I: > I own the Brooklyn Bridge. My ownership cannot be demonstrated by any > known means, but nevertheless I do own the Brooklyn Bridge. Perhaps > you'd be interested in buying it? II: <Message-ID: <339@sri-arpa.ARPA> <From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> <How about if we say that a mass causes a curvature in the ETHER instead <of a curvature in space? Then how bout we say that it isn't a curvature <its a change in density. The closer to a mass the higher the density <the farther away the lower the density. How about we say that this <change in density can maybe cause light to be bent because the ETHER <is of higher density than when not near the mass. How about we say <that it is really this ETHER 'pressure' that holds us to the planet? <How bout we say that time (process rate) is effected by a higher <density of ETHER to the effect of causing time 'process rate' to slow? <How about if I explained in the same easy way how matter and magnetism <relate to ETHER in a clear and understandable way? Hmmm... lets see... <light,gravity,magnetism,time,matter hmmm... sounds interesting. < <But anyway, where am I messing up? I find this an easier way to look <at things than to think of space curving. III: I *also* own the Brooklyn Bridge. My ownership cannot be demonstrated by any known means, does not interfere with other ownership, and is therefore linearly superimposable on other such similar ownership. Perhaps I only own it at a different frequency (every ten years?) ;-) Quantum Mechanics depends upon linear superposition for its validity. Ya might as well buy Quantum Mechanics, too, while you're at it... You'll need it to keep the bridge repaired. Ok. Please don't flame me for my flaming the previous flame. Please do give Eric's question outlined above a fair turn or two. Thank you. Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | harpo!seismo } !hao!hull
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/05/85)
> Well, it seems this group thinks the reason M&M failed to find an ether > drift is that the Earth is stationary in the ether. So they want to > repeat the experiment - aboard the space shuttle. Stay tuned. People this stupid (not the poster, but the Fundamental Cretaionists) are not about to suddenly become rational when yet another experiment confirms the best-confirmed of all physical theories (relativity). They have drawn their conclusions in advance and will undoubtedly be able to find some explanation that satisfies them no matter what the outcome of the experiment.
infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA (07/05/85)
From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> In class, my physics instructor went over the Michelson Morley experiment in which they attempted to prove the existance of the 'ETHER'. The instructor said that Michelson and Morley had come to the conclusion that if there were a ETHER that it could not be detected by any known means. My question is, why has the scientific community acted as if the experiment proved that the ETHER did not exist? Eric
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (07/05/85)
> From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> > How about if we say that a mass causes a curvature in the ETHER instead > of a curvature in space? Then how bout we say that it isn't a curvature > its a change in density. [..and so on in this vein..] Suppose you and I go to the equator and (starting about 100 miles apart) begin walking due north. After a long walk (and swim, with some bushwacking and rock climbing thrown in) we arrive at the pole. Assuming that we are illiterate jocks (the only folks liable to undertake such a project - and if you're an illiterate jock rest assured I'm speaking of the OTHER illiterate jocks), we are puzzled by the fact that we have been pulled together by some mysterious force between us. Repeating the experiment, we determine that we are drawn together no matter what mass each of us happens to have on a given trip, so that we always reach contact at the same point (the pole). So we decide the force must be proportional to inertial mass. How mysterious! Why should the "charge" this force reacts to be proportional to inertial mass? Eventually someone suggests that there is no force at all - the surface of the Earth is merely curved. "Curved space?" we gasp. "How difficult a concept. Wouldn't it be easier to assume the air is filled with magical fairy dust?" [Apologies to Taylor and Wheeler, from whom I lifted the curved Earth analogy if memory serves.] -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
ptb@ukc.UUCP (P.T.Breuer) (07/08/85)
In article <337@sri-arpa.ARPA> infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA writes: >From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> > > In class, my physics instructor went over the Michelson >Morley experiment in which they attempted to prove the existance of >the 'ETHER'. The instructor said that Michelson and Morley had come >to the conclusion that if there were a ETHER that it could not be >detected by any known means. My question is, why has the scientific >community acted as if the experiment proved that the ETHER did not exist? > > Eric Occam's razor.
infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA (07/10/85)
From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> ok, ok, there is a need for the ether to exist, I just have to explain a little more... Imagine a bar magnet. Around this magnet there are the usual lines of whatever. What are these lines? How are the created? Why are they created. I think maybe they are created (as everyone knows) from all (or most) of the electrons in the metal spinning in the same direction. This is nice. Why do electrons just because they are spinning in the same direction cause this feild? well imagine a universe of Ether. Ether can flow around all matter except protons, electrons and neutrons. What happens when the ether is surrounding a spinning electron??? well maybe it is 'PUMPED' by the electron. Maybe if enough of the electrons are spinning in the same direction we will get a noticable pump in a particular direction. Ether going OUT of the N pole, flowing around to fill in the distrubance at the S pole. Of course you say this would violate the first LAW of thermodynamics, but the ether has a property called Frictionlessness, or better it is a almost-frictionless fluid-gas. It is so frictionless that a electron spinning in it will take Years to be slowed. Now, what are electrons, protons, and neutrons????????? Well imagine if we took huge quanities of Ether and compressed them into a very small space. POP! out comes a ELECTRON! wow neet huh?? What did we really do: we too Ether (in the form of waves (Light (energy)) and compressed it into a very small space and we got us some mass. now we gotta keep the density pretty high around this little electron or BOOM! we get our Ether waves (Light (energy)) out again. M to E E to M thru Ether and minipulation therof. I have alot of experiments for you all to prove this and they are forthcoming in the next adventure of Etherman. (you may have noticed I am NOT a English major) Eric
mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (07/10/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
Dear Eric
we do not want any experiments or any more allegories on this!
If you have anything to say - please - put it in writing -- that is in
a mathematicaL form. Did it ever ocured to you that Maxwell equations
provide a way to calculate a force (on your magnet) in a given field?
WHAT DO YOUR ( UGLY ) IMAGES OF compressed ether provide (to others) ??cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (07/12/85)
[] In article <374@sri-arpa.ARPA> mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA writes: > Dear Eric >... > WHAT DO YOUR ( UGLY ) IMAGES OF compressed ether provide (to others) ?? The answer is, simply: a way of seeing one kind of physics (electricity and magnetism) in terms of another kind of physics (fluid flow). Analogies of this sort are helpful when they illuminate one or both kinds. In the nineteenth century, many physicists, including Maxwell, tried out different kinds of mechanical analogies for electromagnetism. For details, see E. T. Whittaker, A History of Theories of the Aether and Electricity. I agree that Eric should get more specific and precise mathematical content into his analogy. Whittaker will show him how it's done. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/12/85)
> From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> > > ok, ok, there is a need for the ether to exist, I just have to explain > a little more... > > [A few dozen more lines of gibberish] > > (you may have noticed I am NOT a English major) > > Eric Not a physics major either. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (07/12/85)
Anthony Tse <tse@nrl-css>: > >This is a test. > # # ##### ####### # # # # # # # # # # # ##### ##### # # # # # # # # # ##### ##### ####### # # ####### ####### ####### ####### ##### ####### ### ### ## # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ##### # # ##### ##### # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # ####### # ### # ####### ##### # ### ###
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/12/85)
> [] > In article <374@sri-arpa.ARPA> mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA writes: > > Dear Eric > >... > > WHAT DO YOUR ( UGLY ) IMAGES OF compressed ether provide (to others) ?? > The answer is, simply: a way of seeing one kind of > physics (electricity and magnetism) in terms of another kind > of physics (fluid flow). Analogies of this sort are helpful > when they illuminate one or both kinds. In the nineteenth > century, many physicists, including Maxwell, tried out > different kinds of mechanical analogies for electromagnetism. > For details, see E. T. Whittaker, A History of Theories of the > Aether and Electricity. > I agree that Eric should get more specific and precise > mathematical content into his analogy. Whittaker will show > him how it's done. > Christopher J. Henrich ------------------------------------------- More specific and precise! It would be an improvement if Eric's posting had any mathematical or physical content at all. Analogies of this sort CAN be helpful, but they can also be obfuscatory and futile. Eric's images are much more complicated than electromagnetism, at least to me and other readers. If he could formulate a mathematical analogy between electromagnetism and fluid flow, it would be most useful, because fluid flow is so damn complicated! However, don't hold your breath. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
gwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/15/85)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> The field of a bar magnet is due primarily to aligned nuclear spins (actually, there are lots of magnetic "domains" each with aligned nuclei), not electron spins, if I recall my solid state courses correctly (it's been a long time). This doesn't affect your ether proposal in any significant way, though. The real problem with your ether proposal is that it is not sufficiently quantitative and precise for anyone to reliably test. Until such time as it is in good enough shape to be compared against experiment and established physical theory, don't expect much excitement on the part of working physicists.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/15/85)
> From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> > > The field of a bar magnet is due primarily to aligned nuclear spins > (actually, there are lots of magnetic "domains" each with aligned > nuclei), not electron spins, if I recall my solid state courses > correctly (it's been a long time). The field of a bar magnet is due to aligned electron spins of a small number of outer electrons. The magnetic moment of the nucleus is negligible compared to that of the electron. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (07/16/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes) The ETHER ressurected? From physics-request@sri-unix Sat Jul 13 17:41:25 1985 Received: from sri-unix.ARPA.ARPA by ames-nas.ARPA; Sat, 13 Jul 85 17:41:18 pdt Received: by sri-unix.ARPA.ARPA (4.12/4.16) id AA07115; Sat, 13 Jul 85 17:29:26 pdt Message-Id: <8507140029.AA07115@sri-unix.ARPA.ARPA> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 14:45:09 PDT To: physics@sri-unix From: vax135!petsd!cjh@UCB-Vax.ARPA (Chris Henrich) Subject: Re: Michelson Morley experiment (actually, Ether) Article-I.D.: <578@petsd.UUCP> In-Reply-To: Article(s) <374@sri-arpa.ARPA> [] In article <374@sri-arpa.ARPA> mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA writes: > Dear Eric >... > WHAT DO YOUR ( UGLY ) IMAGES OF compressed ether provide (to others) ?? The answer is, simply: a way of seeing one kind of physics (electricity and magnetism) in terms of another kind of physics (fluid flow). Analogies of this sort are helpful when they illuminate one or both kinds. In the nineteenth century, many physicists, including Maxwell, tried out different kinds of mechanical analogies for electromagnetism. For details, see E. T. Whittaker, A History of Theories of the Aether and Electricity. I agree that Eric should get more specific and precise mathematical content into his analogy. Whittaker will show him how it's done. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288 :1 :l ; :1 [A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[B[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[B :; :1,4 [A[A:q :quit! :wq :q :1 :t :t5 :1 :? :q [A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[A[Add :q :quit
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (07/16/85)
> From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> > The field of a bar magnet is due primarily to aligned nuclear spins > (actually, there are lots of magnetic "domains" each with aligned > nuclei), not electron spins, if I recall my solid state courses > correctly (it's been a long time). This doesn't affect your > ether proposal in any significant way, though. My solid state physics books are at home, but my trusty Eisberg & Resnick here ("Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles, and New Coke, Whipped Cream, ....") has the following to say: "In a paramagnetic material the atoms contain permanent magnetic dipole moments. These moments are associated with the intrinsic electron spin and the orbital motion of the electrons. (Nuclear magnetic dipole moments are three orders of magnitude smaller than the electronic magnetic dipole moments ...)" Later it explains that ferromagnetism is (roughly) a special case of paramagnetism, where partially filled 3d (or 4d) inner subshells allow the atoms to conspire to align their electron spins with each other. I'd go into further detail from it, rather than spouting my own misrememberings, but I've been berated previously for doing that. Some people are never happy. If you can find Eisberg&Resnick, I recommend it as a good introductory text. (Well, I liked it, anyway). It attempts to provide a general overview of Quantum Physics to prepare you for "the next" course in rigorous Quantum Mechanics. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA I have a bad habit of thinking of tremendously witty .signatures just before I fall asleep. If I kept paper by my bed, you'd probably be laughing uncontrollably at this very moment. Sorry.
gwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/17/85)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> Thanks, Bill, for correcting me. I guess working so much with PAC got me thinking primarily in terms of nuclear spin magnetism. Now that I try harder to recall, the interesting PAC effects were the result of coupling of nuclear spin with an "external" magnetic field in the material, presumably caused by electrons. Thanks..