The Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment

I notice that some on this forum have dedicated their time to "explaining" the results of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment which supposedly shows the earth is rotating. It is thought that this experiment needs to be explained and so fantasies about invisible swirling effects are invented.

However, these experiments really first need to be determined to be valid and researched further as to their details and results. Relying on the honesty of popular science factoids for truth is not acceptable.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Gale-Pearson_Experiment

The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment was a large-scale version of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer which attempted to measure the Sagnac Effect due to the rotation of the earth. It has been claimed that this experiment provided evidence for the earth's rotation.

From a work titled The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments by Dr. Paulo N. Correa we read on p.5:

Quote

" The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments.  Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation, but the result was of borderline significance.  It could be said that the experiment was inconclusive because it adduced neither proof that there was a shift in the phase of the light beams, nor that there wasn't one. "

Essentially the tests saw wild results. There was almost no change to light's velocity in one test, and then a lot of change in another test. It is perplexing that the rotation of the earth would start and stop when tested at different times. Only through the statistics was it claimed that the experiment saw the rotation of the earth. As stated above, the inconsistent results were ambiguous in nature and could offer no evidence of the shift in the phase of the light beams.

==Other Resources==

How to Lie with Statistics''' by Darrell Huff (Psychology Today Article)

==Related Articles==

Michelson-Morley Experiment
Sagnac Experiment
Ring Laser Gyroscope

Why should such inconsistent experiments need to be explained?

The same argument above with the rotation of the earth stopping and starting with each test could be asked of aether or whatever is used to try and explain it. Why should the aether start and stop? For those who believe that it is the earth spinning, why should the earth start and stop when tested at different times?

The MGP Experiment is a bad experiment. The results of an experiment needs to at least be consistent for a phenomenon, whether it be the spin of the earth or another one, to have validity. The fact that the experiment would show the earth almost still in one test and much faster than its supposed speed in another test is more evidence against than for.

In addendum: Stop trying to justify this trash experiment with fantasy phenomena.

Fred Pearson only assisted with the experiment. That is why is more commonly called the MGX. A later experiment was called MPX (Michelson, Pease, Pearson), 1929.

The quote is taken from an article written by Dr. P. Correa who is a fervent proponent of aether theory (his website is called aetherometry).

Now, the formula published by Michelson in 1925 (first presented in 1904) is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

The reason for the variations of the readings is very simple: the periodic effects depending upon the time of day of the ether drift.

This fact was a basic discovery of Dr. Dayton Miller:

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm



Michelson did not address the periodicity of the fringe shifts, instead he prudently offered this explanation:

In view of the difficulty of the observations, this must be taken to
mean that the observed and calculated shifts agree within the
limits of observational error.

However, Michelson did not record the TRUE SAGNAC EFFECT of rotation which for the latitude of Clearing, Illinois, is some 21,000 times greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT recorded.

The periodicity of the ether drift was clearly recorded by Michelson, but not acknowledged.

Since the MGX did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT, and only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, this means that the experiment registered the effects of the ether drift upon the light beams.

The reason for the variations of the readings is very simple: the periodic effects depending upon the time of day of the ether drift.

Another explanation is that there is a electromagnetic puller device located at the edge of the earth, which was built by an advanced and ancient civilization, that flickers on and off with a battery problem and pulls the light horizontally across the earth and messes up the result of this experiment by sometimes slowing down the light.

This inconsistent experiment demonstrated neither the earth's rotation, a rotating aether around the North Pole, or anything else. That is where discussion of the matter needs to end.

Any further discussion on the topic should be only on basic education of what constitutes a valid experiment and what does not, rather than wasting time engaging in fantasy.

Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe was written on the philosophy of empirical inquiry. Unless a phenomenon or claim can be shown empirically, it must be rejected. Inconsistent experiments and the claims which spawn from them fail that test.

Have you ever seen me address the fact that the fringe shifts recorded by Michelson and Gale had significant periodic variations? Certainly not.

Why?

Because the RE would then claim that those variations were due to any number of causes (temperature); what matters is that virtually of all of the FE/GE have accepted Michelson's claim that the formula published by him is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which it is not.

Once the claim regarding the SAGNAC EFFECT is accepted, there is nothing else that the FE/GE can do: they have to accept that the average readings of the fringe shifts do indeed satisfy the formula published by Michelson.

You cannot invoke the e/m device at the edge of the Earth: you are forgetting the HAMMAR EXPERIMENT; an arm of the interferometer was encased in lead and no fringe shifts at all were recorded. Then, the RE claimed that there is no aether displacement as well.

Always remember that the MGX and the HX work in tandem.

You cannot invoke the e/m device at the edge of the Earth: you are forgetting the HAMMAR EXPERIMENT; an arm of the interferometer was encased in lead and no fringe shifts at all were recorded. Then, the RE claimed that there is no aether displacement as well.

That's okay. My fantasy mechanism that pulls light does not penetrate lead. Or maybe it does penetrate lead and only affects experiments of large sizes. I haven't really looked at those details to say what it would need to do either way, but I assure you that my mechanism does whatever it needs to do, and is thoroughly unimpeachable and unemperical.

Have you ever seen me address the fact that the fringe shifts recorded by Michelson and Gale had significant periodic variations? Certainly not.

Why?

Because the RE would then claim that those variations were due to any number of causes (temperature); what matters is that virtually of all of the FE/GE have accepted Michelson's claim that the formula published by him is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which it is not.

They are not dumb enough to try and justify an experiment that is producing wild results with "heat, probably" and then go on with their life thinking that their excuse won the argument. They will say anything, certainly, but they are not ignorant enough to think that their excuses prove anything. If heat can change the results then it can also cause the results.

When you try and explain the results with a mechanism you are giving those results and that experiment validity. The issues merely need to be pointed out and the matter rejected. Inconsistent experiments in sciences that are not desperate to prove something are regularly rejected.

The only reply to further conversation with them on this topic should be to say that it is embarrassing for RE to claim from inconsistent results that the earth is rotating. This is a very valid response, and it does win the argument.

My message to the RE is the following:


An inconsistent experiment is not valid material to base one's conclusions on.

We see this elsewhere, such as with the inconsistent sinking effect that is declared to be the curvature of the earth: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction

Any mechanism you imagine that is modifying the results from your imagined ideal can also be creating those results altogether. Read that sentence ten times.

This goes for the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment and the Sinking Ship Effect and the rest of your nonsense. Learn what proper evidence is and is not. Educate yourself on science integrity. Breathe through your nose. Grow up.

You need to provide proper evidence rather than desperate nonsense. Promoting this stuff as ball earth evidence is absurd and discrediting.