Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Avoiding Tripping Points in Special Relativity (was Basics series proposed)"
- Previous message: sal: "Re: Attack instead of explain or ignore."
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:40:10 GMT
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:416fd6e8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Kenneth Ellested" <ke@jydsk-data.dk> wrote in message
> news:ZIEbd.2681178$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. ;-)
Ah, but can YOU be deprogrammed?
Androcles.
>
>> > >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: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Avoiding Tripping Points in Special Relativity (was Basics series proposed)"
- Previous message: sal: "Re: Attack instead of explain or ignore."
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
