Morley/Michelson Inferometer

Correct, it wasn't done in a vacuum. It didn't need to be because the aether is supposed to flow through everything equally without resistance and yet be the medium supporting light. (If there were any resistance at all the earth would be detectably slowed in its orbit.)

As far as I'm concerned the M&M experiment is logically flawed and isn't at all equivalent to the same type of experiment with water or air as the medium in question ... because water or air could not flow through the experimental apparatus itself as must the aether. Therefore M&M threw their standard of measure in with their experiment thus logically invalidating it by making it "self-referential".

What M&M proved is ... nothing at all.

"I have read that the Morley/Michelson inferometer experiment to measure the earths velocity relative to the aether proved that the aether does not exist.

This is the layman interpretation. It is wrong. The experiment did not disprove the existence of aether but proved that it is not needed when performing calculations. Therefore, the result was significant.

Wow. Just when you think you've learned all there is to know about the Michelson-Morley experiment, you find a new gem. Not only did they do an interferometry experiment, but an inferometry experiment as well. What is it and how does it work?

The preceding has been an instance of satire. The author is aware of its near-extinction in a morass of malaise (is this a mixed metaphor?) of the English language. Satire can work only if there is some bare minimum of word use capability on the part of the mass audience. Made-up words like "inferometry" are not a good sign. Science is hard enough to communicate accurately without the added confusion of nonexistent words.

I've been confused about the M&M result too. What was measured exactly-I recently was told it measured the radial velocity of the Earth relative to the sun and nothing more than that? Why would that be a factor?

Was the M&M interferometer also suspended in a vat of mercury?

If the interferometer had to be isolated from motion to prevent an interference, wouldn't that alone prove there was relative motion?

There should be better records and history of this and other details that are not really science but are none the less relative issues.