That being said, M&M is explained neatly by theory of special relativity which has other experimental results to back it up.
Bill
It would take me a week to reply to all your questions mchale, many of which I answered on my thread (now closed) Deny Geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth. As regards your STR which you Copernicans rely on, well:
The perception is that all his peers applauded Einstein’s theories, and that time has vindicated and proven them true, as mchale would have us believe. In fact there were many who openly opposed the theories. Outstanding among these was Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and author of many standard textbooks on astronomy.
Elsewhere, Professor Herbert Dingle records that Lord Rutherford as saying ‘that any Anglo-Saxon would have the sense to see that the theory of [special] relativity is nonsense’, ignoring all Albert Einstein had to say on the matter thereafter.
Dr Arthur Lynch, another distinguished mathematician, in 1932 wrote the self-explanatory The Case Against Einstein. He himself quotes M. Bouasse, Professor of Physics at the University of Toulouse, as speaking of the ‘insanities of the Relativists.’
In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s Relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science’.
Dingle on Relativity
Of all the falsifications of Einstein’s theories none make a better story than the uncovering of this absurdity. It began in 1972 with the publication of Professor Herbert Dingle’s new book ‘Science at the Crossroads’. Now the thing is that this same professor was for many years one of Einstein’s most devout pupils. On page 105 of his Crossroads he writes: ‘To the best of my knowledge there is no one living who can give objective evidence that he is more competent in the subject than I am.’ Way back in 1922, three years after Einstein’s Relativity theories, Dingle published the first book on the subject called Relativity for All. For fifty years he is associated with all the big-name relativist physicists of the era such as Einstein himself, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Born, Shroedinger and Bridgman. His ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ became the standard textbook on the subject, and could be found in use in most universities of America and Europe. Indeed, it was he that provided one of the two articles on Relativity in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But Dingle then saw his error.
The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s Relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, Relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on earth, it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.
‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.—’Herbert Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, p.16.
Sir Arthur Eddington, who played an important part in promoting Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, once wrote:
‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of science.’ --A.S. Eddington: Space, Time and Gravitation, ch.1,
For thirteen years Dingle challenged the Relativists to rebut his falsification of Einstein’s relativity. Knowing they were on a beating to nothing, the fellows of the Royal Society; the scientific journals in England and America, and even the popular press with the sole exception of The Listener (1969), “ignored, evaded, suppressed and indeed treated in every possible way except that of answering it by the whole scientific world.”
Now dear readers, that is the Special theory of Einstein’s the Copernicans on this thread put up to disprove the M&M experiment didn’t show the earth does not move. I am going to bed.
