Validity and reliability on Michelson-Morley Experiment (1 Viewer)

[nirukk]

So I had this question come up in my trials. It's out of 2 marks.

Jo: The Michelson-Morley Experiment was a good experiment. It was reliable and valid when it was done.
Con: Well, it may have been reliable but it was not valid as it failed in its aim.

Justify Jo's statement: (My answer)

Jo is correct because at that time of the experiment, their aim is to test the presence of aether through the Earth's rotation & thus the use of interferometer to look for interference patter was a valid scientific model. But the lack of understanding about the constancy of the speed of light meant that their results were always null.

I've got 1 mark for this. How can I improve my answer ?

 

[FallingNightSky]

^ Err noo..no you dont- it says justify as in agree with him and give reasons for his statement. However op you did not mention the reliable part which couldve been answered by saying that they tested it in different times of the year and different times of the day which all came to a null result-your current answer only includes the validity part

 

[Demise]

"But the lack of understanding about the constancy of the speed of light meant that their results were always null. " - this means the experiment was not valid and hence you should have disagreed with Jo's statement.

Just because the results were null does not mean the experiment was invalid. Their variables were all maintained and met, and therefore to test the presence of the Earth in the aether was successful - the aether does not exist (null result).

 

[Kimyia]

^ Err noo..no you dont- it says justify as in agree with him and give reasons for his statement. However op you did not mention the reliable part which couldve been answered by saying that they tested it in different times of the year and different times of the day which all came to a null result-your current answer only includes the validity part

This. I'd say you got the 1 mark for validity, but you lost the mark for not addressing the reliability part of Jo's statement.