Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Avoiding Tripping Points in Special Relativity (was Basics series proposed)"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Kenneth Ellested: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:58:14 +0200
"Kenneth Ellested" <ke@jydsk-data.dk> wrote in message
news:ZIEbd.2681178$ic1.275632@news.easynews.com...
SNIP
> I try to have an open mind, and I'm not against relativity, ether or xyz -
I
> just can't imagine how relativity works... which is due to my limitted
> ability of only beeing able to think in "natural" physics.
Where is the problem for you? I can only imagine how relativity works by
thinking "natural" physics. How light works however, I still don't
understand.
SNIP
> > >I do however have huge problems with relativity, especially that the
> > >speed of light is constant to any inertial frame (which (as I
understand)
> > >it had to, since an ether wasn't detected).
It sounds as if you have been confused by some crappy arguments.
> > Why should the speed of light not be constant, apart from your extra-
> > polation from personal experience with velocities ranging from about
> > 0.0000000 c to 0.0000001 c? Physics studies phenomena at the extremes.
> > The nucleus of an atom for example has a density of about 10^17 kg/m
> > a temperature on the order of 10^10 K, a speed of sound around c/3 and
> > collision times on the order of 10^-22 seconds. If you try to imagine
> > that in familiar terms, you'll probably find that hard to believe, too.
> Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
> inertial frame.
> It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
> constellations.
Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)
> > >With an ether model this problem would be solved in a way that makes
more
> > >sense to me (at least), so that's why I'm trying to figure what exactly
> > >rejected this model, why it was rejected and why it still is. And if I
> > >find the answer, this may make even more sense.
Never heard of fashion?
Harald
- Next message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Avoiding Tripping Points in Special Relativity (was Basics series proposed)"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Kenneth Ellested: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
