Re: If Sagnac gets non-null results, why should Michelson-Morley not?

Am Samstag000018, 18.06.2022 um 04:59 schrieb Stan Fultoni:
>

No, you're wrong... see above. The subject line of your message
reveals your misunderstanding. A Sagnac device is measuring
rotation (i.e., acceleration), whereas a Michelson-Morley
apparatus is checking for any putative effects of inertial motion.
Classical ballistic theories give the right prediction for
Michelson-Morley but wrong for Sagnac, whereas classical ether
theory is right for Sagnac but wrong for Michelson-Morley. Special
relativity correctly predicts the outcomes of both experiments.

Stan Fultoni, What I meant was has anyone ever tried to
detect/measure the rotation of Earth using a Michelson-Morley
apparatus. I know that's not what it's "supposed" to do, but *can*
it/has it been done?

No, as explained above, a Michelson-Morley apparatus does not
measure rotation. Do you understand this?

Can a Michelson-Morley apparatus be used to measure the tangential
motion of the Earth's surface due to the Earth's rotation?

>
This was answered in my first message.  Again (please try to
concentrate), the Michelson-Morley apparatus was designed to detect
translational motion under the hypothesis of a classical stationary
ether, and it was expecting to see the motion due to the earth's
orbital motion (i.e., 67000 mph), and it was able to rule that out,
and then one might ask about the 1000 mph of tangential speed due to
the earth's rotation... you might say "Has the experiment been done to
enough precision to rule out even 1000 mph?"

>
The Earth moves WAYYY faster than that!
>
Only the tangential rotation around the own axis is 'once per day'.
>
But the Earth circles also around the sun and the sun araund the
galactic center.
>
The entire galaxy called 'Milky way' rotates, too, inside the local
cluster and possibly that also.
>
So: what would you mean with 'stationary'?
>
>
TH
>