Wikipedia:Peer review/Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment/archive1

Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I would point out that for the stationary aether calculations, it was assumed that the entire apparatus is indeed an inertial frame. I would suggest the Sagnac effect is negligible here and that further proof, probably via math, of the validity of SR, is required. I believe it is inconsistent to have half this experiment to assume an inertial frame and then the other half to not. All that is measured here is the difference made by the different relative "linear velocities" of the top and bottom legs.

It would seem the same explanation that would validate SR also validates the entrained aether (or pretty much any model). Simply, there is a slight difference in the relative v between the mirrors in the legs parallel to the equator. Depending on direction, if we set the origin mirror as the frame of reference and consider the target mirror's component of velocity parallel with the origin's, one goes over the horizon and approaches the origin mirror (less distance and thus time) and the other comes over the horizon and lags the origin mirror (more distance and thus time). The rest of the logic is the same as in the PDFs as argued for the stationary aether. The other 2 perpendicular legs are equal and opposite of course.

There is nowhere near enough typical Sagnac effect (lateral motion of mirrors) here to rule out an entrained aether.

This experiment succeeds on the basis of variant c (stationary aether), so I believe the math for SR needs to show that it is also verified by the results in order to claim that SR is upheld here. The entrained aether has the same burden but would be virtually in the same boat as SR mathematically.

So this experiment either dismisses SR and an entrained aether, or it is consistent with both.

Thanks, Hosh1313 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought, this is actually very embarrassing for Michaelson and, for the last 86 years, the entire physics community.

At the very top of page 138 of the "Part I" PDF we see that v (the relative velocity of the assumed stationary ether) is dis-guarded from the overall mathematics. So the only condition that needs to be satisfied is that v << c, which is most accurate, funnily enough, in the case where v = 0 i.e. a fully entrained ether.

If I see no argument against this within a few weeks then I will edit this page accordingly. Hosh1313 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Spinningspark. I am not sure that you have not misunderstood the Wikipedia Peer Review process and might instead have needed Request for Comment. Peer review on Wikipedia is not about scrutinising original work as it is in academia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not permit original research: anything added is expected to already be published in reliable sources. Peer review here is more about reviewing articles against Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style and for quality of prose. I would suggest that before adding to the article as you seem to want to do, that you first find up-to-date reliable sources that reach the same conclusions and verify that these represent the mainstream view. A minority view can also be included in articles so long as it can be shown to be notable and is not given undue weight over the majority view. Hope that is helpful. Spinning Spark 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]