Claim register
Claim Evaluation
Every claim is stated exactly, traced to its origin, and evaluated against the best supporting and the best opposing case. Scientific claims must expose their full reasoning chain — observation, measurement, calculation, prediction, physical test, result, replication — and declare per-model predictions BEFORE the result is shown. Appeals to authority (“science says”, “experts agree”, “the math proves it”, “settled”) are not evidence. Confidence is authored, not tallied. Preserve disagreement rather than force a conclusion.
- Incomplete — primary sources not yet ingestedThe universal comparison scaffold below is a placeholder. Do not treat empty sections as evidence.
Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) and the aether hypothesis
UnresolvedMichelson and Morley (1887) reported no measurable fringe shift attributable to Earth's motion through a stationary luminiferous aether.
Origin: Topic acknowledged; primary sources not yet ingested into this record.
Best supporting case
Awaiting primary-source ingest before an authored comparison.
Best opposing case
Awaiting primary-source ingest before an authored comparison.
Evidence
Universal comparison · who claims what, and how each model explains it
ExperimentalWho makes the claim: Michelson & Morley, American Journal of Science (1887); reinterpreted by many later frameworks.Scope: See exact wording for scope and definitions; further scoping to follow with primary sources.
Flat / enclosed model
What it says: Cited by some as evidence the Earth is not moving through space — supporting a stationary Earth in either flat or geocentric variants.
Required assumptions: light-in-vacuum
Strongest objection: Awaiting primary-source ingest.
Falsifier: A modern replication detecting a fringe shift at the level Michelson–Morley predicted for a moving Earth in aether.
Globe model
What it says: Interpreted in relativity as evidence that the speed of light is invariant — motion through aether is unobservable because no aether frame exists.
Required assumptions: light-in-vacuum
Strongest objection: Awaiting primary-source ingest.
Falsifier: A repeatable directional fringe shift consistent with a preferred aether frame.
Circular-reasoning check
No circular-reasoning risks identified in the authored evidence chain.
Knowledge library · claim → equation → law → assumptions
Laws / principles
Theories / models
Assumptions
Hidden assumptions
— none recorded —
Missing evidence
- Primary sources for the flat-model explanation.
- Primary sources for the globe-model explanation.
- At least one reproducible physical test with independent replication.
Contradictions
— none recorded —
Reproducibility
- Not yet documented in this record.
Confidence · not_rated
This record is a structural placeholder. Confidence will only be rated once primary sources and reasoning chain are authored.
Confidence is authored, not tallied. It reflects primary vs. secondary evidence, source independence, methodology, conflicts, and reproducibility — not the count of sources.