• Michelson-Morley-type experiments and the ECI

    From amirjf nin@amirjfnin@aim.com to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Feb 19 14:00:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Feb 19 22:48:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    amirjf nin wrote:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    What do you mean by "Michelson-Morley-type experiment" and "with the ECI in mind"? What are you getting at?

    *An* ECI (Earth-centered inertial) coordinate frame is a useful theoretical model for describing satellite orbits and analyze relativistic effects such
    as "gravitational time dilation" (scare quotes intended; it is a convenient misnomer), not something that can be realized physically/experimentally:
    there is no object that can practically be at rest in an ECI.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial>
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From amirjf nin@amirjfnin@aim.com to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Feb 19 17:15:15 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 2/19/2026 4:48 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    amirjf nin wrote:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    What do you mean by "Michelson-Morley-type experiment" and "with the ECI in mind"? What are you getting at?

    *An* ECI (Earth-centered inertial) coordinate frame is a useful theoretical model for describing satellite orbits and analyze relativistic effects such as "gravitational time dilation" (scare quotes intended; it is a convenient misnomer), not something that can be realized physically/experimentally: there is no object that can practically be at rest in an ECI.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial>


    I am fairly certain all of the mainstream papers regarding modern Michelson-Morley replications never ever mention "ECI".
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Feb 20 00:01:37 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    amirjf nin wrote:
    On 2/19/2026 4:48 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    amirjf nin wrote:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    What do you mean by "Michelson-Morley-type experiment" and "with the ECI in >> mind"? What are you getting at?

    *An* ECI (Earth-centered inertial) coordinate frame is a useful theoretical >> model for describing satellite orbits and analyze relativistic effects such >> as "gravitational time dilation" (scare quotes intended; it is a convenient >> misnomer), not something that can be realized physically/experimentally:
    there is no object that can practically be at rest in an ECI.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial>

    I am fairly certain all of the mainstream papers regarding modern Michelson-Morley replications never ever mention "ECI".

    Again, assuming that would be true, now knowing what an ECI is, why do you think that they should?
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From amirjf nin@amirjfnin@aim.com to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Feb 19 18:31:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 2/19/2026 6:01 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    amirjf nin wrote:
    On 2/19/2026 4:48 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    amirjf nin wrote:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind? >>>
    What do you mean by "Michelson-Morley-type experiment" and "with the ECI in >>> mind"? What are you getting at?

    *An* ECI (Earth-centered inertial) coordinate frame is a useful theoretical >>> model for describing satellite orbits and analyze relativistic effects such >>> as "gravitational time dilation" (scare quotes intended; it is a convenient >>> misnomer), not something that can be realized physically/experimentally: >>> there is no object that can practically be at rest in an ECI.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial>

    I am fairly certain all of the mainstream papers regarding modern
    Michelson-Morley replications never ever mention "ECI".

    Again, assuming that would be true, now knowing what an ECI is, why do you think that they should?


    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/epl/i2001-00502-1
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@relativity@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Feb 20 10:55:39 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 19.02.2026 20:00, skrev amirjf nin:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    If you by "the ECI" mean "the non-rotating frame of reference
    where the centre of the Earth is stationary", this was very much
    in Michelson's mind.
    He tried to measure the speed of the ether in said frame.

    In Michelson's words:"the motion of the earth through the ether".

    https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mikko@mikko.levanto@iki.fi to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Feb 20 12:55:22 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 20/02/2026 11:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 19.02.2026 20:00, skrev amirjf nin:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    If you by "the ECI" mean "the non-rotating frame of reference
    where the centre of the Earth is stationary", this was very much
    in Michelson's mind.
    He tried to measure the speed of the ether in said frame.

    In Michelson's words:"the motion of the earth through the ether".

    https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf

    The measurement described in the 1887 article was not sesitive enough
    that the difference between the ECI frame and the surface frame would
    matter.
    --
    Mikko
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From nospam@nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Feb 20 13:21:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

    Den 19.02.2026 20:00, skrev amirjf nin:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    If you by "the ECI" mean "the non-rotating frame of reference
    where the centre of the Earth is stationary", this was very much
    in Michelson's mind.
    He tried to measure the speed of the ether in said frame.

    In Michelson's words:"the motion of the earth through the ether".

    https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf

    But Michelson was well aware that there should be both a daily effect,
    caused by the Earth' rotation, and a (much larger) yearly effect
    caused by its orbital motion.

    IIRC he looked for both, so he 'didn't think ECI',
    (avant la lettre)

    Jan


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@relativity@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Sat Feb 21 21:57:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 20.02.2026 13:21, skrev J. J. Lodder:
    Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

    Den 19.02.2026 20:00, skrev amirjf nin:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    If you by "the ECI" mean "the non-rotating frame of reference
    where the centre of the Earth is stationary", this was very much
    in Michelson's mind.
    He tried to measure the speed of the ether in said frame.

    In Michelson's words:"the motion of the earth through the ether".

    https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf

    But Michelson was well aware that there should be both a daily effect,
    caused by the Earth' rotation, and a (much larger) yearly effect
    caused by its orbital motion.

    IIRC he looked for both, so he 'didn't think ECI',
    (avant la lettre)

    Jan


    Michelson looked for "the motion of the earth through the ether".
    What he tried to measure was the velocity of the ether relative
    to the earth, that is the velocity of the ether in the non rotating
    frame of reference where the centre of the earth is stationary -
    now called the ECI-frame.

    Michelson obviously knew that since the laboratory was on
    a spinning Earth, the velocity of the lab would have a diurnal
    varying component in the ECI-frame. But he didn't mention
    this velocity in his paper, the only velocity he mentions is
    "v = velocity of the earth in its orbit".
    Michelson probably thought (knew) that the diurnal variations
    would be negligible.

    The yearly variation of the velocity of the ether due to
    the orbiting of the earth around the sun was what he expected
    to find.

    The speed of a point on equator in the ECI-frame is 465 m/s.
    The speed of the Sun in the ECI-frame is 2978000 m/s (~1e-4 c)

    The fringe shifts he expected are proporsional to v-#/c-#.
    The expected yearly effect is 40 millions time higher than
    the diurnal effect.
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@relativity@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Sat Feb 21 22:03:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 20.02.2026 11:55, skrev Mikko:
    On 20/02/2026 11:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 19.02.2026 20:00, skrev amirjf nin:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind?

    If you by "the ECI" mean "the non-rotating frame of reference
    where the centre of the Earth is stationary", this was very much
    in Michelson's mind.
    He tried to measure the speed of the ether in said frame.

    In Michelson's words:"the motion of the earth through the ether".

    https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf

    The measurement described in the 1887 article was not sesitive enough
    that the difference between the ECI frame and the surface frame would
    matter.


    Right.
    That's why Michelson ignored the speed of the lab in the ECI-frame.
    What he tried to measure was the speed of the ether in the ECI-frame.

    See my response to J.J.Lodder.
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From nospam@nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) to sci.physics.relativity on Sat Feb 21 23:36:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

    Den 20.02.2026 13:21, skrev J. J. Lodder:
    Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

    Den 19.02.2026 20:00, skrev amirjf nin:
    Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley-type experiments with the ECI in mind? >>
    If you by "the ECI" mean "the non-rotating frame of reference
    where the centre of the Earth is stationary", this was very much
    in Michelson's mind.
    He tried to measure the speed of the ether in said frame.

    In Michelson's words:"the motion of the earth through the ether".

    https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf

    But Michelson was well aware that there should be both a daily effect, caused by the Earth' rotation, and a (much larger) yearly effect
    caused by its orbital motion.

    IIRC he looked for both, so he 'didn't think ECI',
    (avant la lettre)

    Jan


    Michelson looked for "the motion of the earth through the ether".

    Right, almost.
    He expected to find -variations- in the velocity of the Earth
    with respect to the stationary aether.

    What he tried to measure was the velocity of the ether relative
    to the earth, that is the velocity of the ether in the non rotating
    frame of reference where the centre of the earth is stationary -
    now called the ECI-frame.

    Wrong. (and of course also an anachronism)
    All this talk of ECI frames is nothing but a red herring.
    Forget about it, in connection with M&M.

    Michelson, and everybody else at the time,
    expected the aether, even called the 'world-aether',
    to provide an absolute rest frame. (for the whole universe even)
    It was the only frame in which Maxwell's equations would be valid,
    with the x and t in them being Newton's absolute space and time.

    Michelson obviously knew that since the laboratory was on
    a spinning Earth, the velocity of the lab would have a diurnal
    varying component in the ECI-frame. But he didn't mention
    this velocity in his paper, the only velocity he mentions is
    "v = velocity of the earth in its orbit".
    Michelson probably thought (knew) that the diurnal variations
    would be negligible.

    That is a practical matter.
    Since he was unable to demonstrate the orbital effect
    there was little point of talking about the smaller rotational effect.
    AFAIK he did his experiments on a daily basis.

    The yearly variation of the velocity of the ether due to
    the orbiting of the earth around the sun was what he expected
    to find.

    Michelson also resorted to 'aether-dragging'
    as the explanation for his null-result.
    This only makes sense if the aether in his lab would have
    a velocity, which it can only have wrt the aether farther out.
    (on a mountain top for example, where he wanted to repeat M&M)

    The speed of a point on equator in the ECI-frame is 465 m/s.
    The speed of the Sun in the ECI-frame is 2978000 m/s (~1e-4 c)

    The fringe shifts he expected are proporsional to v?/c?.
    The expected yearly effect is 40 millions time higher than
    the diurnal effect.

    You have an error in you powers of ten here,

    Jan


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2