🚀 go-pugleaf

>From OTA@S1-A Thu Jan 14 03:25:39 1982

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #78
		 Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 1982 0958-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #78
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13-Jan-82 0302-PST

The claim in that news article that life has been in existence on the
Earth for only 1/2 billion years is patently false.  There is evidence
for life going back over 3 1/2 billion years.  In fact, it is now 
thought that it is very easy for life to get started, taking only a few
million years.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1982 00:26-EST
From: Ken Harrenstien <KLH at MIT-AI>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC

Apologies to those receiving duplicates.  I was reading through
a friend's pile of old magazines the other day, and came
across a curious statement.
	In the November 1979 issue of ANALOG there is a guest
editorial titled "Beyond Relativity" by G. Harry Stine.  It
is a fairly standard treatise on Einstein, the nature of science,
and so forth, at least until page 161.  At that point there is
a paragraph which made me blink several times:

	"And, while it is true that Michelson and Morley did not find
	the expected 60 kilometer per second differential that would
	have confirmed the existence of the luminiferous ether, THEY
	DID FIND A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 8 KILOMETERS PER SECOND!"
	 (caps are italics in original)

	There is more following this, to the effect that these results
have been duplicated repeatedly, and it seems as if the speed of light
is not, in fact, independent of the motion of the observer!

	Naturally I am very curious to know what more knowledgeable
readers might have to say about this, or the article itself if they
can find it.  Is the quote, for example, a correct statement of
fact?  Is G. Stine given to wild conjectures or distortions?  (Doesn't
strike me that way, though.)  Considering the desperate search of
SF for holes in the lightspeed limit, I'm a little surprised that
Analog doesn't seem to have followed up on that in later issues.
Perhaps somebody has already explained it away?

--Ken

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************