Was the Michaelson -Morley Experiment Invalidaded By JR bourne?
442904
Yes it is true. It proved that light doesn't need any medium to travel and thus no such thing called aether exists.
33889
Oh boy, you stumbled on to a topic that frustrated me to no end last year.\n\nIn my personal opinion (though I don't have much of a reason to say so), the answer is no.  Last year, I thought it was because they violate the conservation of energy principle, but it turns out my logic was flawed.\n\nOne professor I talked to (a particle physicist) said he doesn't believe monopoles can exist, though I wasn't able to ask him why.  Another professor didn't state his own opinion, but he did tell me some of the evidence that monopoles could exist.  First, Maxwell's equations are practically begging to include monopoles.  If monopoles exist, there is a beautiful symmetry between the electric and magnetic Maxwell equations.\n\nAlso, if monopoles are flying through space, they should create a magnetic flux as they pass us.  My professor told me that they essentially created a super-cooled coil of wire and sat around waiting for a monopole to pass through it.  In 1982, they found exactly the signature they were looking for, seemingly verifying the existence of monopoles.  Exact evidence couldn't appear by chance, could it?  Well, as it turns out, (in my physics professor's elegent words) by a cruel trick of nature, monopoles happen to produce the exact same voltage in super-cooled wire as a "quantum glitch" (I'm not sure if that's a scientific term).  No monopoles have been detected since then and it seems unlikely that we will find them by that method without improved equipment.\n\nLastly, I asked my professor why monopoles could exist if we've never observed them.  He pointed out that I probably believe that antimatter exists even though I've never observed it.  He did a very good job of explaining why monopoles might exist.\n\nI still believe monopoles aren't out there.  Magnetism strikes me as a consequence of electricity, not a partner to it.  As for creating monopoles, I wouldn't have the slightest clue.  I would have to research some elementary particle physics.
831271
Dear Madame,\n\nYou could try testing wave-particle duality nature of photons, and report on how the theory corresponds with Schodiger's findings in the early 20th century. \n\nAnyone can put a light bulb in a potato. Also, the above response about commercials is about as unscientific as you can get. I don't trust emus.\n\nPianoguy
27171
Its actually derived from Maxwell's Wave Equations, see source. Its too complex and requires mathematic symbols, so I can't type it here.
635129
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/advancedlab/labs/frankhertz/\n\nhttp://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~rrogers/Phys%20321/5_Frank.htm\n\nhttp://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/demomanual/modern_physics/quantum_mechanics_and_atomic_physics/frank_hertz_experiment.html
976374
Yes, hence the reason it is refered to as the THEORY of evolution. \nSo, your point is???  Do you know that the THEORY of relativity (E=MC^2) explains why nuclear reactions take place.  Perhaps we should stop believing in electricity next.
72303
The short answer is no. \n\nIn science, it is important that results be repeatable. This is especially true when dealing with some phenomenon like cold fusion which appears to violate all the principles that we understand. \n\nPons and Fleishman and others tried to reproduce the observations, and were unable to do so reliably. A recent review by the Department of Energy of 15 years of research and efforts in the field reached the conclusion that this phenomenon does not exist, or at least cannot be verified.
241834
I beleive this is the one:\n\nhttp://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~braslavs/Biophysics/Articles/Wei%20Zhang/Rosensweig2002.pdf
133961
It was a so called experiment in the Philadelphia ship yards to make a ship invisible by using electromagnetic radiation to bend light around an object. \n\n"The experiment was allegedly conducted by one Dr. Franklin Geno (or Rinehart) as a military application of Albert Einstein's unified field theory, or "generalized theory of gravitation". The theory, briefly, postulates the interrelatedness of the forces that comprise electromagnetic radiation and gravity. Through a special application of the theory, it was thought to be possible, with specialized equipment and enough energy, to bend light around an object, rendering it essentially invisible. The Navy considered this application to be of obvious value in wartime (as the United States was engaged in World War II at the time) and approved and sponsored the experiment. A Navy destroyer escort, USS Eldridge (DE-173), was fitted with the required generator equipment at the Naval Yards in Philadelphia.\n\nTesting began in the summer of 1943, and was initially successful to a limited degree. One test, on July 22, 1943, resulted in Eldridge being rendered almost completely invisible, with some eyewitnesses reporting a "greenish fog" — however, crew members complained of serious nausea afterwards. At that point, the experiment was altered by the request of the Navy, with the new goal being invisible to radar only.\n\nEquipment was not recalibrated, and the experiment was performed again on October 28. This time, Eldridge not only actually became almost entirely invisible to the naked eye, but actually vanished from the area entirely in a flash of blue light. Concurrent with this phenomenon, the U.S. Naval base at Norfolk, Virginia, just over 600 km (375 miles) away, reported sighting Eldridge offshore for several minutes, whereupon Eldridge vanished again and reappeared in Philadelphia, at the site it had originally occupied — a supposed case of accidental teleportation.\n\nThe physiological effects on the crew were profound. Almost all of the crew were violently ill. Some suffered from mental illness because of the experience — behavior conforming to schizophrenia is described in some accounts. Still other members were missing — supposedly "vanished" — and allegedly five of the crew were actually fused to the metal bulkhead or deck of the ship. Horrified, Navy officials immediately cancelled the experiment. All of the surviving crew involved were discharged; in some accounts, brainwashing was used to make some crew members forget about the details of their experience."
1181622
No not really, but you do have a point... at least I think you do, I kinda only skimmed the question; find it hard to take bender seriously...\nI think you can go back before that.\nExperimental physics (and the scientific method) was founded on two axioms that many choose to ignore.\n1) observability: if you can't observe it, then you can't perform an experiment on it. Kinda obvious that one.\n2) repeatability: e.g. I punch Kostya Tzu, he says ow, why'd you do that. The next couple of times yield similar results. I begin to formulate a hypothesis linking the word ow with punching. I punch him again he ducks out of the way and... where am I? I could swear I was standing up a moment ago. You can't experiment on the behaviour of people as there is no hard and fast rules linking cause and effect. Science is restricted to investigate only those things that do have such a link (There is such a thing as behavioural science but it is not actually scientific).\nMathematicians also work with limits to their knowledge. Some spend decades trying to prove that you can't prove whether a certain statement is provable. I don't know what this would be - The quest for absolute uncertainty?\nAnyway there are limits to understanding that are beyond us mortal beings but just because the total amount of knowledge out there up for grabs is limited does not mean it's necessarily finite (There are many different kinds of infinity, an infinite amount of them in fact). There's a lot to discover either way. Sometimes you do get the scientific megalomaniac who's after "Asolute" knowledge but generally most of us are just along for the ride; fascinated by the way things have been put together.
276224
these guys do it much better than i can:\n\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/class/phscilab/kundt2.html
108909
As a person who's gone through a rigorous science education, and I think for the scientific community at large, when I say that I believe there is no principle behind rods or pendulums - In fact, I did read somewhere that diving rods were tested, diviners hired to try and find water tables that scientests had discovered with other means, and the success rate was very low, not much different then trying to find the water at random.\n\nI guess there's a perception that these things work if you make a prediction/guess as to where water is, and it turns out to be right, you'll believe there's something to it. \n\nYou can read the Wikipedia article on divination:\n\nand I just found the article I remember reading that disputes divining rods (second link):
96814
He established precise and accurate measurements of the densities of oxygen and hydrogen. Also, he was involved in the Michelson-Morley experiment. See the site below for more information on the experiment.
890014
The answer is Yes. And they did it. Ok it was a laser ( I think) \n\n  There was an article on a proton accelerator or something of that nature, not sure what the experiment was but the laser hit before button was pushed. Mind you it was a nano second difference but the laser hit before button was pushed.\n\n It was on yahoo news about 2 years ago. In Tech & science area.
730887
I have a pair of those interesting deep-dish-shaped double-domed parabolic mirrors from Edmund Scientific, the top one sits upside-down on the bottom one, and the top one has a hole in it.  So when you put something inside it, and move away at an angle, an image of the object appears to be sitting above the top dish.  I ask people, "Hand me that little pink pig sitting on that dish".  They see it, reach for it, pick up nothing, reach for it again, and see their fingers apparently pass right through a solid object.\n\nWhat is the reality there?  My eyes tell me there's a little pink plastic pig sitting on the top of that dish.  Yet when I try to pick it up, my fingers pass right through it.  But then I distort the mirrors a little, and the pig blurs in an odd way that lets me see that he's actually a reflected image from inside the unit.  And if I understand optics sufficiently, I understand that it is possible, with certain arrangments of parabolic mirrors, to erect "real" images (versus the more common "virtual" images that we see in most mirrors and lens) of objects, and even design and build versions of my own, with the effects and capabilities fully determinable in advance.  That's reality.\n\nReality does exist.  Granted, we have a limited and distorted view of it due to the limitations of our senses, but it does exist.  For example, this desk in front of me seems like a solid object.  But in truth, my view of it is limited by the fact that my eyes are not able to resolve the electrons orbiting the nuclei that make up the desk, and that the vast majority of this desk is vacuum, therefore the fact that, when I touch this supposedly-solid desk, what's actually happening is that the electrostatic field generated by the electrons of the desk are exerting a force against the electrostatic field of the electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atoms making up my fingers.  There are no "solids" touching anything, just fields pushing against each other the way 2 magnets can push against each other.\n\nTo me it looks like reality begins immediately outside your eyes.  All is reality.  The only place it ends is inside your head, when you misinterpret what your limited senses tell you.
630244
No not at all. This concept has been tested on more than one occasion. The faster a body moves the slower time passes relative to that person. This was tested by getting two superbly accurate atomic clocks were taken. One was left on earth and another was taken up in a jet plane. When the plane landed the clock on the plane was observed to be a couple fractions of a second behind the clock on earth. \n\nThe equation for this difference is:\n\ndelta T(stationary)=(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*delta T(moving)\n\nNot to be disrespectful but why are most of your questions concerned with doubting the theories that Einstein has put forth. Almost all of his theories have been tested and confirmed to extremely high degrees of accuracy
609124
Reflection and refraction do not directly prove Huygen's Theorem, at least not in any way I'm familiar with. Diffraction patterns, such as those of single and double slits, are clear examples of Huygen's Theroem in action.\n(We haven't done wave optics yet)