Re: MMX and Zeno
- From: "Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Apr 2005 08:33:52 -0700
Peter Riedt wrote:
> MMX AND ZENO
>
> The absence of interference in MMX can be explained by applying the
> arrow paradox of Zeno to the experiment.
>
> Consider the arrangement of the MMX apparatus. A light source emits
> light towards a halfsilvered mirror A which redirects half of it on a
> perpendicular path towards mirror B which returns it to mirror A. The
> other half quantity of light passes through mirror A to chase a
> receding mirror C along the parallel axis. Both mirrors B and C are
> supposed to return the two separate beams of light to mirror A where
> they should combine out of phase as distance AC is motion adjusted
> while distance AB remains the same. Let us assume the speed of light
> and the speed of mirror C to be in the ratio of 10000:1 and distances
> AB and AC to be 10m each. Accordingly, when the light has reached the
> position where mirror C was, mirror C has advanced .0001m and when
the
> light gets there, C is .00000001m further away and so on. The light
> never reaches C and therefore cannot return to A to interfere with
the
> light from B.
So you think that light will never reach a receding object.
Anyone who has ever seen anything moving away, knows that your an
idiot.
Paul Cardinale
.
- References:
- MMX and Zeno
- From: Peter Riedt
- MMX and Zeno
- Prev by Date: Re: This Newsgroup.
- Next by Date: Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- Previous by thread: Re: MMX and Zeno
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
